w 


>  ' 


0. 

5^ 

2 

..-vT 

_Q. 

:           '^ 

1) 
-a 

*** 

(— 

•S      ^ 

CL 

f.   ^ 

"3 
5 

*25     g 

\ 

^    l^       w 

i> 

i 

o 

3 

C 
CO 

i     ^ 

2 

1    : 

1 

^ 

§; 

?*» 

■a 

^ 

% 

c   . 

^^ 

^ 

i 

i 

^ 

^      i 

^       1 

10  i 

% 

- 

The  Mode  and  Subjeds  of  Baptijrui 


li  ' '■' '      '  j' i     t: 


SERMON  ^^  %;     J' 


MATTHEW  xxvUi.  19,  20. 

Go  yfy  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  haptv^ing  them   in   the  nat, 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the   Son,  and  of  the  Holy   Ghojl ',    teac 
ing  them   to   ohferve   all  things   tuhatfoeijer   I  have   commani 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  nv'ith  you  al-way^   even   unto  the  end  cj  if. 
luorld.     Amen. 

IT  hath  pleafed  the  Father  of  Mercies  to  beRow  on  fallen 
man  a  revelation  from  heaven.  In  it  is  contained  the 
fcheme  of  grace,  i^hich  brings  life  and  immortality  to  lighr. 
It  fhows  the  way  by  which  to  efcape  the  wiath  to  come,  and 
to  find  the  favour  of  God.  All  fcripture  is  given  by  his  in- 
fpiralion,  -^^^  is  profitable  for  do<ftrine,  for  reproof,  for  cor- 
region,  for  inftru<5tion  in  righteotifnefs ;  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,   thoroughly  furnilhed  unto  all  good  work?. 

Till  the  human  heart  be  humbled,  in  meafure,  man  feels 
not  his  need  of  divine  teaching  ;  nor  will  he  make  the  fcrip- 
tures  the  man  of  his  counfel.  But,  my  brethren,  and  peo- 
ple, it  is  doubilefs  the  cafe  that  many  of  yt  u  poffefs  a  wil- 
lingnefs  to  have  your  principles  and  pradice  fquared  by 
the  word  and  teflimony  of  Jefus  Chrifl.  My  text  contains 
fome  of  the  lafi  words  of  our  great  High-P.ieft.  It  is  the 
general  orders  which  he  gave  his  firft  apoftles,  and  left  for 
the  inftiuiftion,  pra<ftice  and  comfort  of  all  their  facceff  rs,  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  In  the  vcrfe  which  precedes  my  text-, 
Chrift  informs  us  that  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  i^ 
given  unto  him.  His  words,  therefore,  are  clothed  wjtix 
authority.  May  we  hear,  and  fear,  and  be  obedient.  Where 
the  word  of  a  kiijg  is.  there  is  power  ;  and  who  may  fay  unto 
the  King  of  Zion,  Whar  doft  thou  ? 

So  far  as  we  be  Chriftians,  all  that  is  necefTary  to  enforce  obe- 
dience is,  to  know  wha-  Chrift  would  have  us  to  do.  Perhaps 
not  a  palTage  in  all  the  oracles  of  truth  contain*  more  extenfive 


4  The  Mode  and  Subjeds         [Serm.  I. 

inftruflion  than  do  the  words  of  my  text.  The  commands  are 
exceedingly  broad  ;  the  Baptifmal  Inftitution  comprehends  all 
obedient  difclples ;  and  the  comforting  piomife  is  durable  as 
the  world. 

In  my  text,  Chrlfl  Jefus,  the  Head  of  th6  church  and  Lord 
of  alj,  conftiluted  his  prefent  and  fucceeding  difciples  to  be  apof- 
tles  unto  all  nations.  It  contains  their  commiffion,  and  general 
and  particular  orders.     In  it  they  are  direfted 

I.  •  To  go  and  difciple  all  nations. 

II.  To  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

III.  He  directs  thefe  newly  conftituted  apoftles,  and  all 
their  fucceifors,  to  teach  their  baptized  difciples  to  ohferve  all 
things  whatfoever  he  had  given  in  commandment. 

Laftly.  For  their  encouragement  and  comfort,  he  adds. 
And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen. 

I  ruppofe  it  will  be  expedient,  and  with  me  it  is  an  indlfpcn- 
fable  duty,  that  \  lay  each  of  thefe  propofitions  as  fairly  and  as 
fully  before  you  as  I  can.  But  I  fiiall  not  obferve  the  order  in 
whicli  they  lie  in  my  text,  which  is  as  I  have  juft  (lated  them. 
For  I  have  many  things  to  fay  unto  you,  in  agreement  with  my 
text,  but  fear  that  you  aie  not,  all  of  you,  able  t^bear  tliem 
now.     We  fhall  therefore  begin  with  the 

II,  Which  contains  Chrift's  command  to  baptize,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  tlie  Holy  Ghofl, 
ihofe  who  iliall  be  diicipled  of  all  nations. 

Kor  do  I  purpofe  to  call  your  attention,  at  this  time,  to  the 
whole  which  is  implied  in  this  proportion.  But  what  I  pur- 
pofe is,  to  define  a  few  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordinance, 
and  then  colle(5l  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  with  fome 
other  texts,  which  may  throw  light  upon  the  fubjed.  After- 
vards,  in  difcourfes  which  may  follow,  I  may  produce  evidence, 
that  nty  definition  of  baptifm  is  accurate  and  juft  ;  and  (how 
how  the  apoftles  and  primitive  Chiiftians  underftood  this  mat- 
ter, and  how  they  pradiled.  When  this  is  done,  it  will  be  eafi« 
ly  fe:n,  what  is  the  outward  and  vifible  pait  of  baptifm  j  and 
then  the  purport,  end  and  dcfign  of  the  inftitution  may  call  ior 
fome  attention. 

Before  I  proceed  to  open,  illuftrate  and  confirm  thefe  partic- 
ulars, I  have  feveral  things  to  fay  unto  you.  For  I  wilh  you 
to  attend  to  the  fubjecSt  without  partiality  and  without  hypoc- 
rify.     I  pray  God  to  remove  daiknefs  and  all  prejudice  from 


Serm.  I.]  of  Bapiifm.  5 

your  minds,  that  you  may,  indeed,  come  to  the  law  and  to  the 
teftlmony  of  Jefus  Chriil  in  this  matter. 

You  will  confider  me  as  under  the  ftrongeft  worldly  induce- 
ments to  continue  to  believe  and  pradlife  as  I  have  heretofore 
done;  for  fhould  I,  after  mature  ccnfideration,  be  conftrained 
to  believe  and  praftife  differently,  you  will  be  releafed  from  all 
legal  obligations  to  afford  me  any  farther  fupport ;  my  relations 
will,  the  rooft  of  them,  probably  be  greatly  lliccked  and  difpleaf- 
ed,  at  ihe  report ;  many,  whom  1  highly  value  as  Chriftians, 
and  numbers  of  them  zealous  preachers  of  the  gofpel,  will,  it 
may  be,  confider  me  as  loft,  and  worfe  than  loft,  to  the  church, 
and  world  ;  and,  befides  this,  multitudes  will,  no  doubt,  fay  all 
manner  of  evil  againft  me.  All  this  being  true,  with  a  thou- 
fand  other  conne<5led  fmaller  evils,  and  nothing  of  a  worldly  na- 
ture in  profpedl,  fave  what  is  contained  in  the  promife  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  you  cannot  but  conclude  that  I  fliall  proceed  no  farther 
in  this  matter  than  I  am  obliged  to,  in  following  the  Lamb  of 
God  whitherfoever  he  goeth. 

Having  faid  thus  much  with  leQjefft  to  myfelf,  I  will  ftil! 
add,  that,  Ihould  a  change  in  my  belief  and  pra<ftice,  refpeiling 
the  fubjeft  on  hand,  bring  me  to  a  more  full  belief  and  pra<5lice 
of  the  truth,  I  fhall,  on  the  whole,  be  a  gainer.  But,  fhould  a 
change  take  place,  and  I  be  called  to  fuftain  all  the  evils  which 
I  may  calculate  upon,  and  after  all  be  plunged  myfelf  into  a 
hurtful  and  bewildering  error,  furely  all  the  meek  and  lowly 
in  heart  would  rather  commiferate  than  revile  me. 

Another  tiling  I  would  mention  to  you,  fo  that  the  fubje(5t 
may,  if  it  poilibly  can,  meet  your  minds  without  prejudice. 
You  ought  not  to  fix  your  judgments,  nor  found  your  belief, 
upon  the  arguments  or  conftfiions  of  great  and  good  men,  any 
farther  than  fuch  arguments  and  confeffions  are  conformed 
with  the  fcriptures  of  truth.  Should  we  hearken  to  what  the 
greateft  and  beft  of  men  have  confeffed  and  afSrmed  of  the 
fubjecft  which  we  are  about  to  confider,  and  have  our  belief  and 
practice  correfponding  with  what  they  have  written,  the  matter 
would,  moft  evidently,  go  againft  what  we  have,  in  time  paft, 
both  believed  and  pra<ftifed.  For  they  have  very  generally,  or 
very  many  of  them,  if  not  all  cf  them,  confeffed,  or  afl^lrirtcd,^ 
however  their  pradTiice  may  have  been,  that  immeifion  was  the 
mode  praaifed  by  the  apoitles  and  primitive  church.  This  i 
purpofe  to  prove  to  you  in  its  proper  place. 

What  I  have  more   to  aJd,  before  I  proceed  to  the  irain 
bufinefsj  is,  to  ftate  a  few  plain  truths, 
.  A  2 


t3  T/je  Mode  and  Subjecis         fSerm.  I. 

1.  Baptifm  is  a  pofidve  inftitution,  about  which  we  can 
know  nothing,  as  to  its  being  a  Chrillian  ordinance,  but  from 
•what  Chrift,  and  thofe  infpired  by  his  Spirit,  have  taught  us. 

2.  All  which  we  are  required  to  believe  and  pra(5tife,  with 
refpefl  to  the  Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm,  is  declared  to  us 
by  Jefus  Chrift  and  his  forerunner  and  apoftles. 

3.  When  Jefus  Chrift  firft  inftitured  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm, he,  no  doubt,  delivered  his  mind  fo  clearly  and  fully  upon 
the  fubje<5t,  that  his  immediate  difciples  and  apoiiles  unierftood 
and  pradtifed  as  he  would  have  them. 

4.  Every  thing  which  hath,  by  the  precepts  and  command- 
ments of  men,  been  added  fmce,  is  diftinct  from  the  ordinance, 
and  makes  no  part  of  it. 

5.  No  man,  or  body  of  men,  have  any  more  authority  to 
add  to  this  ordinance,  or  to  diminifh  from  it,  than  they  have  to 
inftitute  a  new  one  and  call  it  Chrift *s. 

6.  Whenever,  and  wherever,  this  ordinance  is  fo  changed, 
as  to  lofe  the  intent  of  the  Inftitutor,  then  and  there  the  ordi- 
nance is  loft,  and  becomes  no  Chriftian  ordinance  at  all. 

Having  laid  thefe  preparatory  obfervations,  remarks  and 
plain  truths  before  you,  we  proceed  to  confider  the  fubjed  now 
on  hand,  which  is — 

Chrift's  command  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  tlie  Holy  Ghoft,  thofe  who  fhall  be  difcipled 
of  all  nations. 

What  is  propofed  for  the  prefent  difcourfe  Is — 

1.  To  define  a  few  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm.     Then — 

2.  To  coUe(!!t  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm.  together 
widi  fome  other  texts,  which  may  throw  light  upon  the  fubjed. 
Afterv/ards,'  in  fome  following  difcourfes,  we  may — 

3.  Produce  evidence,  that  my  definition  of  baptifm  is  ac- 
curate and  juft.     Then  fhow — 

4.  How  the  apoftles  and  primitive  church  underftood  this 
matter,  and  how  they  pradifed.  When  this  is  done,  it  wilt 
be  eafily  feen — 

5.  What  is  the  outward  and  vifibk  pare  of  Chriftian  bap- 
tifm.    Then — 

LqjQIy,  The  purport,  end  and  defign  of  the  baptlfmal 
jiiftitution  may  call  for  our  attention. 

Agreeably  to  what  is  propofed,  we  are — 

I.  To  define  a  few  words  which  appertaia  to  the  ordinance 
of  bantifm.     Thefe  are— 


Serm.  I.J  of  Baptifm.  7 

1.  BaptiJlerion<i  Greek;  hapujler'iiim^   2.nd  lava  rum,  Lalin;- 
a  font,  a  bath,  a  wafliing  place,  a  velTel  to  v.-alii  the  body  in  j 
tnglifh. 

2.  Baptifma  and  hapiifmos^  Greek  ;  Bapt'ifma  and  Lot'io,  a'fo 
ahlutia  faura,  Latin  ;  bapiiim,  waihing,  iacied,  ceremonial 
wafliing  ;  Enj^lifh. 

3.  Bapujiesy  Greek ;  lapt'ijla^  Latin  ;  one  who  dips,  a 
baptift;  Engliih. 

4.  Baptizd.,  Greek  ;  Ijptl'zo^  mergo^  Iwco,  Latin  ;  to  baptize, 
10  dip  all  over,  to  waili ;   Englifn. 

5.  LouOi  Greek  ;  lavoj  Latin  ;  to  wafli,  to  rinfe,  to  bathe  ; 
Englifh. 

2.  We  are  to  coUe<rt  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  to- 
gether vrith  fome  other  texts  which  may  throw  light  upon  the 
fubj-a. 

VVe  will  begin  with  thofe  pafTages  which  fpeak  of  the  bap- 
tifm of  John. 

1.  Matth.  iii.  5,  6,  7.  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerufaiem^ 
and  all  Judea,  and  ail  the  region  round  about  Jordan,'  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confefling  their  fms.  But 
when  he  faw  many  of  the  Pharifees  and  Sadducees  com.e  to 
his  baptifm,  he  faid  unto  them,  O  generation  of  vipers,  5cc. 

2.  Verfe  11.  1  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  re- 
pentance, &c. 

3.  Verfes  13,  14,  15,  16.  Then  cometh  jefus  frona 
Galilee  to  Jordan,  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him:  bat 
John  forbade  him,  faying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee, 
and,  comeft  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jefus  anfwerin^,  faid  uiitQ 
him.  Suffer  it  to  be  fo  now,  for  thus  it  beccmelh  us  to  fulfil 
all  righteoufnefa :  then  he  fuffered  him.  And  Jefus,  when  he 
was  baptized,  went  up  ftrai^htway  out  of  the  water. 

4.  Matth.  xxi.  25,  26,  27-  Ihe  baptifm  of  Jrhn,  whence 
was  it,  from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  And  tliey  reafoned  with 
themfelves,  faying.  If  we  fhould  fay.  From  heaven,  he  will 
fay  unto  us.  Why  did  ye  not  then  believe  him  ?  But,  if  we 
fhall  fiy,  Of  men,  we  fear  the  people,  for  all  hold  John  as  a 
prophet.  And  they  anfwered  Jefus  and  laid,  We  cannot  tell, 
&c. 

5.  Mark  i.  4,  5.  John  did  baptize  in  the  wildernefs,  and 
preach  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  rem'.ffion  of  fins. 
A.id  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Juc'ea,  and  they 
of  Jerufaiem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  iN  tlie  rivei"  of 
JordaD,  confeffing  their  fias. 


4 

h 

S"  •  •  *  ne  Mode  mid  Subjed's         [Serm.  1. 

irfes  8,  9,  lo.      I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with 
nd  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  days,  chat  Jefus  came 
izaieth  of  GaHlee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jor- 
^dan  ;   and  ftraightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  &c. 

7.  Mark  xi.  30.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 

8.  'Luh  iii.  3.  And  he  came  into  all  the  country  about 
j^.,.  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiffion 
f^y^  fins.        \     . 

9.  Verfes  7,  ^.     Then  (aid  he  to  the  multitude  that  cam.e 
fcTth  to  he  baptiied  of  him,   O  generation  of  vipers' 
bring^  forth  thereifo^e  fruits  meet  for  repentance. 

10.  VtY^t  12.     Then  came  alfo  publicans  to  be  baptized. 
2  t.     Verfe  16.    A.  indeed  baptize  you  with  water. 

..    12,     Verfe  2  1.     Now  when  all   the  people  were  baptized, 
it  came  to  pafs  that  Jefus  alfo,  being  baptized,  &c. 

13.  Luke  vii.  29,  50.  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him, 
and  the  publicans,  jultitied  God,  being  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tifm of  John.  Buf  the  Pharifees  and  lawyers  rejedled  the 
counfel  of  God  againft  themfelves,  being  not  baptized  of  him. 

14.  Luke  XX,  4.  The  baptifhi  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 

15.  yokn  i.  25,  26.  Why  baptized  thou,  then,-if  thou  be 
not  that  Chrift,  nor  Llias,  neither  tliat  prophet  ?  Johnanfwer* 
cd  them,  faying,  I  baptize  with  water. 

16.  Verfe  28.     Beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing. 

17.  Verfe  31.  That  he  Ihould  be  made  manifeft  to  Ifrael, 
therefore  am.  i  com«  baptizing  with  water. 

18.  Veife  33.     He  that  fent  me  to  baptize  with  water. 

19.  yohn  iii.  23.  And  John  alfo  was  baptizing  in  Enon, 
near  to  Saiim,  becaufe  there  was  much  water  there  ;  and  they 
came  and  were  baptized. 

20.  John  iv.  i.  The  Pharifees  had  heard  that  Jefus  made 
and  baptized  more  difciples  than  John. 

21.  John  X.  40.  Beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where 
John  at  Sift  baptized. 

22.  j4ds   i.  5.     John  truly  baptized  with  water. 

23.  Verfe  22.     Beginning  from  the  baptifm  of  John. 

24.  ^ds  X.  37.     After  the  baptifm  which  John  preached. 

25.  ABs  x\.  16.     John  indeed  baptized  with  water. 

26.  yW-s  xiii.  24.  When  John  had  firft  preached,  before 
his  coming,  the  baptifm  cf  repentance  to  all  the  people. 

27.  Jcis  iviii.  15.     He  (ApoUos)  fpake  and  taught,  dill- 


Serm,  I.]  of  Bapiifnu  9 

gently,  the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptifm  of 
John. 

28.  /Ids  xix.  3,  4.  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  ? 
And  they  faid,  Unto  John's  baptifm.  Then  faid  Paul,  John 
verily  baptized  with  the  baptifm  of  lepentaiice,  faying  unto  the 
people,  that  they  Ihould  believe  on  him,  which  fhould  come  af- 
ter him,  that  is,  on  Chrift  Jefus. 

We  will  next  turn  our  attention  to  thofe  texts  which  mention 
Chrlft's  baptifm. 

1.  Matth.  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

2.  Mark  xvi.  15,  16.  And  he  faid  unto  them,  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature  :  he  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized,  (hail  be  faved. 

3.  John  iii.  5.  iixcept  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the 
Spirit,  &c. 

4.  Verfe  22.  After  thefe  things,  came  Jefus  and  his  difci- 
cipies  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  tarried  with  them  and 
baptized. 

5.  Verfe  26.  Behold  the  fame  baptizeth,  and  all  men 
come  to  him. 

6.  Jobfi  iv.  r.  2.  When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how 
the  Pharifees  had  heard  that  Jefus  made  and  baptized  more 
difciples  than  John,  (though  Jsfus  kimfelf  baptized  not,  but 
his  difciples.) 

7.  ^tvj-  iii.  38.  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them,  Repent,  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jeiiis  Lhrid,  for 
the  remiffion  of  fms,  and  ye  fhali  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft. 

8.  A^s  ii.  41,  Then  they  that  gladly  received  bis  word 
were  baptized. 

9.  yids  viii.  T2,  13.  But  when  they  believed  Philip  preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name 
oi  Jefus  Chrift,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women. 
Then  5imon  himfelf  believed  aifo,  and  when  he  was  baptized, 
&c. 

10.  Acis  viii.  16.  Only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jefus. 

11.  Verfes  36,  37,  38,  39.  And  as  they  went  on  their 
way,  they  came  unto  a  certain  water  ;  and  the  eunuch  fiid, 
See,  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
And  Philip  faid.   If  thou  believeft  with  all  thin;;  heart?  thou 


lO  The  Mode  and  Subjeds         [Serm.  L 

niayeft.  And  he  faid,  I  believe  that  Jefus  Chrift  Is  the  Son  of 
God.  And  he.  commanded  the  chariot  to  (land  ftill.  And 
they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eu- 
nuch, and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up 
out  of  the  water,  &c. 

12.  j^cis  \r..  18.     And  he  (Saul)  arofe,  and  was  baptized. 

13.  jids  X.  47,  48.  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  thefc 
fhould  not  be  baptized,  wliich  have  received  the  Holy  Ghoft 
as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord. 

(4.  ^Fis  xvi.  15.  And  when  fhe  (Lydia)  was  baptized, 
and  her  houfthold. 

1$.  Verfc  33.  And  was  baptized,  he  (the  jailer)  and  all 
his,  ftraightway. 

16.  j^ds  xviii.  8.  And  many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing, 
believed,  and  were  baptized. 

17.  y^i.?j  xix.  5.  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jf  fus. 

1 8.  Ads  xx\u  19.  And  now,  why  tarrieft  thou?  Arife 
and  be  bapt'zed,  and  wafh  away  thy  fins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord. 

19.  Rom.  VI.  3,  4.  Know  ye  not,  that  fo  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Chrift  Jefii?,  were  baptized  int(7  his  death  ? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death,  that 
like  as  Chrift  was  rai:ed  up  from  ihe  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  fo  we  alfo  fhruld  walk  in  newnefs  of  life. 

20.  I  Cor,  i.  13,  14,  15.  1 6.  17.  Were  ye  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Paul  ?  1  thank  God  dia:  I  baptized  none  of  you  but 
Crifpus  and  Gaius ;  left  any  fh'^'uld  fay  that  I  had  baptized  in 
mine  own  nan.e.  And  I  baptized  alfo  die  houfehold  of  Stepha- 
ras  :  Befides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other  j  for 
Chiift  fent  ine  not  to  bapt^zj,  but  to  pre  ich  the  gofpel. 

2  1-      I  Cor.  vi,  II.     Bat  ye  are  wathed. 

22.  I  C  r  xii  13.  For  by  one  S'orit  are  we  all  baptized 
in'o  one  body.* 

23.  1  Cor.  xv.  29.  Life  \^hat  Ihail  they  do  that  are  bap- 
tized for  the  dead  > 

24.  GciL  iii.  27.  Por  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tizetl  into'Ch.'ift,  have  put  on  Lhrift. 

25.  Fph.  iv.  5.     One  baptifm. 

26.  £ph.  V  26.  i  iiar  })e  n^ght  fan<fl'fy  and  cleanfe  it  with 
the  waftiing  of  water  by  the  word. 

•  This  litend*,  as  fomp  fupp  fe^  the  Baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghnft. 


Serm.  1.]  cf  Baptifnu  11 

27.  Col.  ii.  1 2.  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  alfo 
ye  are  rifen  with  him. 

28.  Titus  \\\.  5.  According  to  his  mercy  he  faved  us,  by 
the  waihing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

29.  Heh,  vi.  2.      The  dodrine  of  baptifms.* 

30.  Heh^  X.  22.     Our  bodies  wafned  with  pure  water. 

31.  1  Peter  lii.  21.  The  like  figure  whereunlo  even  bap- 
tifm  doth  now  fave  us,  (not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the 
flefli,  but  the  anfwer  of  a  good  confcience  towards  GoM,  by  the 
refurredion  of  Jefus  Chrift,) 

Thefe,  I  believe,  are  all  the  texts  in  the  New  Teftament 
which  have  a  plain  and  obvious  refererjce  to  either  the  baptifm 
of  John  or  of  Chrift.  They  afford  us  the  fum  of  all  the  knowl- 
edge which  we  can  have  of  either  the  mode  or  fubje<5ls  of  Chrif- 
tian  baptifm.  What  thefe  paffages  fay,  we  may  believe  ;  what 
they  do  not  countenance,  we  may  not  believe.  I  will  now  fet 
before  you  thofe  paffages  where  waihing  is  mentioned,  and  the 
Greek  words  which  are  ufed. 

1.  Matth.  vi.  17.  Bat  thou,  when  thou  fafteft,  anoint  thy 
head,  and  (rnpfai)  wa(h  thy  face. 

2.  Matth.  XV.  2  Why  do  thy  difciples  tranfgrefs  the  tra- 
dition of  the  elders  ?  for  they  [nlptontai)  wafh  not  their  hands 
when  they  eat  bread. 

3.  Matth.  xxvii.  24.  When  Pilate  faw  that  he  could  pre- 
vail nothing,  but  that  rather  a  tumult  was  made,  he  took 
water  and  {apenipfato)  wafhed  his  hands. 

4.  Mark  vii.  2.  And  when  they  faw  fome  of  his  difci- 
ples  eat  bread  with  defiled,  that  is  to  fay  with  {anlptois)  un- 
wafaen  hands. 

5.  Vqt{q  3.  For  the  Pharifees  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  [nipjdntai)  wafh  their  hands  oft,  they  eat  not,  &c. 

6.  Verfe  4.  When  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  {bapt'ifontai)  wafh,  they  eat  not ;  and  many  other  things 
there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  {baptijmous) 
wailiings  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vefTtls,  and  cf  tables. 

7.  Verfe  5.     But  eat  bread  with  (^«//)/5/V)  un'.^'a{h en  hands. 

8.  Verfe  8  For,  laying  afide  rhe  commandments  rf  God, 
ye  hold  the  tradition  of  men,  as  the  {baptijmous)  wafhing  of 
pots  and  cups. 

9.  Luke  y,  2,  And  xhtj  [apeplunan]  were  wafhing  their 
nets. 

•  It  is  not  certain  that  this  hath  any  reference  to  Chriftlan  baptifm ,  If 
it  bave»  it  muft  refer  not  to  thxt  on\j.  Sec  Doddridge  in  loc. 


12  The  Mode  and  Subjeds         [Serm,  I. 

lo.  Luke  vii.  38.  And  flood  at  his  feet,  t)ehind  him, 
weeping,  and  began  [hrechein)  to  wafti  his  feet. 

li.  Verfe  44,  And  he  turned  to  ihe  woman,  and  faid 
unto  Simon,  Seeft  thou  this  woman  ?  I  entered  into  thine 
houfe,  thou  gaveft  me  no  water  for  my  feet  ;  but  fhe 
(el/rexe)  hath  wafhed  my  feet  with  tears. 

12.  Luie  xi.  38.  And  when  the  Pharifees  faw  it,  that 
he  had  not  firft  [ebaptiflhe)  waflied  before  dinner. 

13.  John'xn.'],  And  faid  unto  him,  Go<,  and  [nipjai) 
wafh  in  the  pool  of  Siloam  ; — he  went  his  way  therefore 
and  {enipfato)  waflied. 

14.  Verfe  15.  Then  again  the  Pharifees  alfo  alked  him 
how  he  had  received  his  fight ;  he  faid  unto  them,  He  put 
clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  (enipfamen)  waflied  and  do  fee. 

15.  John  xiii.  5.  After  that  he  poured  water  into  a  bafon, 
and  began  [nlptdn)  to  wafti  the  difciples'  feet. 

16.  Verfe  6  And  Peter  faid  unto  him.  Lord,  dofl  thou 
(nipteis)  wafli  my  feet. 

1 7.  Ver.  5.  Peter  faith  unto  him.  Thou  fiialt  never  (tiipjes) 
wafli  my  feet.  Jefus  anfwered  him,  If  I  {nipfo)  wafli  thee  not, 
thou  haft  no  part  with  *ne. 

i«.  Verfe  10.  Jefus  faith  to  him.  He  that  is  [okloumenos) 
waflied,  needeth  not  fave  {tiipfnjlhai)  to  wafli  his  feet,  &c. 

19.  Verfe  14.  If  I  then,  your  Lord  and  Mafter  (enipfa) 
have  waflied  your  feet,  ye  alfo  ouglit  [mptein)  to  wafti  one 
another's  feet. 

20.  A8s  ix.  37.  And  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  days  that 
ihe  was  flck  and  died,  whom  when  they  had  {loufantes)  waflied. 

21.  Acfs  xvi,  33.  And  he  took  them  the  fame  hour  of  the 
night,  and  [eloufen)  waflied  their  ftripes. 

z2.  Aas  xxii.  £6.  And  now,  why  tarrieft  thou  ?  Arife  and 
be  baptized,  and  {apoloufal)  wafli  away  thy  flns. 

23.  I  Cor.  vi.  II.  And  fuch  were  fome  of  you ;  but  yc 
{^apeloufagthe)  are  waflied. 

24.  Eph.  V.  26.  That  he  might  fandlify  and  cleanfe  it 
with  (loutro)  the  wafliing  of  water  by  the  word. 

25.  I  Tim,  v.  10.  If  flie  (en'tpfen)  have  waflied  the  faints' 
feet. 

26.  Titus  ill.  5.     By  the  [loutrou)  wafliing  of  regeneration. 

27.  Heb.  ix.  10.  Which  ftood  only  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  {dtapborois  baptifmols)  divers  wafliings. 

28.  Hcb.  X.  22.  Ji.a^'ing  our  bodies  Ueloumenoi)  «^flied 
with  pure  water. 


Serm.  L]  of  Baptifnu  13 

29.  iPeter  n.  22.  But  it  is  happened  unto  thenti  according  to 
the  true  proverb — and  the  fow  that(/»^^/^«?^  was-wafhed,  &c. 

30.  Rev.  i.  5.  Unto  him  tliat  jbved  vS^^n^f^loufantl) 
waftied  us  from  our  fins  in  his  own  blood- 

31.  Rev.  vii.  14.  Thefe  are  they  who  came  out  of  great 
tribulation,  and  [epiunan)  have  wafhed  their  jeb^s  in 'the  blood 
of  the  Lamb.*  '^"^Hfea^,, 

Thofe  paffages  which  make  mention  of  sprinkling,  with  the 
Greek  words  ufed,  now  call  for  your  attention. 

1.  Heb.  ix.  13.  For  if  the  Hood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and 
the  afhes  of  an  heifer  [rant'izoufa)  fprinkling  the  unclean,  &c. 

2.  Verfe  19.  He  (Mofesj  took  the  Hood  of  calves  and  of 
goats,  with  water,  and  fcarlet  wool,  and  hyfTop,  and  {errantlfe) 
fprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people. 

3.  Heb.  yi.  22,  Having  our  hearts  (tfrr^«///*wfnoi)  fprinkled 
from  an  evil  confcience. 

4.  Heb.  xi.  28.  Through  faith  he  kept  the  pafTover  and 
the  [prnfchufin)  fprinkling  of  blood. 

5.  Heb.  xii.  24.     And  to  the  blood  of  (rantifmou)  fprinkling. 

6.  I  Peter  i.  2.  And  to  the  [ranti/mon)  fprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  JefusChrift. 

Laftly.  You  will  now  give  attention  for  a  moment  to  thofe 
paflages  of  fcripture  where  the  word  dip  is  r;:entioned. 

1.  Z,«i^xvi.  24.    That  he  may  (^<3/>j-^)  dip  his  finger  in  water. 

2.  Mutth.  xxvi.  23.  And  he  anfwered  and  faid,  He  that 
{embapjai)  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  difh. 

3.  Mark  xiv.  20.  And  he  anfwered  and  faid  unto  them, 
It  is  one  of  the  twelve  that  (embaptomenos)  dippeth  with  me  in 
the  difli. 

4.  John  xiii.  26.  And  he  anfwered,  He  it  is  to  whom  I 
(hall  give  a  fop  when  I  have  [bapfas)  dipped  it ;  and  when  he 
had  [embapfas)  dipped  the  fop,  &c. 

5  Rev.  xix.  13.  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vefture 
[bebammenon)  dipped  in  blood, 

A  few  remarks  on  what  we  have  paiTed  over  will  clofe  the 
prefent  difcourfe. 

I.  We  fee  that  all  the  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm,  fignify  the  fame  which  they  would,  provided 
immerfion  were  the  fcripture  mods. 

•  P/unB  properly  fignifies  to  wafh  clothes ;  as  lauS,  the  body  ;  and  n.'pfS, 
the  face  and  hands. 

B 


14^  The  Mode  and  Subjeds       [Serm.  II. 

2.  We  fee  that  the  fiibje^l  of  baptifm  is  .very  repeatedly 
mentioned  in  the  New  Teftament.  It  is  brought  to  view  ex- 
prefsly  in  about  threefcore  paflages. 

3.  Whenever  baptifm  is  mentioned,  and  neither  the  word 
bapti%d  nor  baptifmcs  is  ufed,  the  word  fubftituted  plainly  inti- 
mates that  bathing  or  wafhing  the  body  all  over,  is  the  mode  5 
for  this  is  the  fignification  of  loudf  which  is  the  word,  and  the 
only  word,  which  tlie  fcriptures  employ  in  the  room  of  bnpu%o» 

4.  '  Whenever  bapti%d  or  baptifmos  is  tranflated  wafhing,  a 
ceremonial  and  not  a  common  walliing  is  manifeftly  intended. 

5.  We  find  that  in  all  the  places  where  fprinkling  is  men- 
tioned, the  original  word?,  rhantizd,  ^nd profchuftfiy  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  baptizo  zrA  baptijmos» 

6.  You  will  pleafe  to  obferve,  that  wherever  we  find, 
through  the  New  Teftament,  the  word,  to  dip,  it  is  from  the 
fame  theme  whence  baptizo  comes. 

7.  We  fee  that  every  tiling  looks  as  though  immerfton  might 
be  the  mode  ;  and,  as  for  fprinkling^  there  is,  to  fay  the  leaft, 
nothing  which  looks  like  it. 


SERMON    II. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofl ;  teaching 
them  to  obfer've  all  things  ivhatfoe'ver  I  have  commanded  you  : 
And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alivay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
'■juorld.     Amen, 

THE  bufmefs  which  we  are  now  upon  depends  very  much 
upon  the  definitions  of  certain  words,  and  principally 
upon  the  definition  of  the  word  baptize,  and  upon  the  certain 
evidence  of  fuch  definition  or  definitions  being  accurate  and 
iuft.  For  we  can  no  otherwife  underftand  what  God  the  Lord 
faith  unto  us,  than  by  knowing  the  import  of  the  words  by 
which  he  is  pleafed  to  communicate  his  will.  The  great 
Teacher  who  came  from  God,  hath  doubtlefs  communicated 
his  mind  fo  explicitly  that  the  humble  in  heart  may  know  the 
common  matters  which  relate  to  faith  and  pradlce.  If  we 
devoutly  fearch  the  fcriptures,  and  feek  wifdoni  as  filver,  and 


Serm.  II.]  of  Baptifm.  15 

fearch  for  her  as  for  hid  treafures,  God  will  make  us  to  under- 
ftand  knowledge,  and  to  ferve  him  with  acceptable  pradlice. 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  hath  moil  certainly  chofen  acceptable 
words,  words  of  definite  meaning.  We  are  to  fearch  out  their 
fignification,  and  to  be  obedient.  I  cannot  judge  of  their  fig- 
niiication  for  you,  nor  can  I  anfwer  for  the  judgment  whicii 
you  fhall  make  up,  nor  can  you  for  me. 

1  am  by  my  office  obliged  to  exhibit,  fo  far  as  I  can,  all 
thofe  divine  truths  which  relate  to  faith  and  pradice.  I  am 
obliged  to  believe  and  pra^ife  according  to  the  beft  licjit 
which  I  can  gather,  or  have  in  any  way  afforded  m€.  You 
are  under  fimilar  obligations. 

Whilft  we  proceed,  T  wifh  you  to  believe  fully  two  things  ', 
one  is,  that  truth,  if  believed  and  pradcifed,  will  not,  on  the 
whole,  harm  you.  The  other  is,  that  the  mod  fure  way  to 
acquire  truth  is,  to  be  of  a  humble  and  obedient  mind,  read^ 
to  receive  the  truth.  For  God  refifteth  the  proud,  but  giveth 
grace  to  the  humble. 

In  the  preceding  difcourfe,  we  attended  to  the  definition  of 
certain  words  which  appertain  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  ;. 
and  then  collecfled  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  together 
with  fome  other  texts  which  are  fuppofed  to  throw  light  upon 
the  fubje(fl  under  confideration.     In  tlirs  difcourfe  we  are — 

3.  To  produce  the  more  dire<5t  evidence  that  my  defini- 
tions of  baptifm  and  to  baptize  are  accurate  and  juft. 

The  definition  which  I  gave  of  baptifm  was,  a  luajlnngi  ^.fn- 
cred^  a  ceremonial  wafhing.  I  will  now  add  to  this  definition, 
that  it  is  immsrfion,  or  dipping  one  all  over  in  water. 

The  definition  which  I  gave  of  the  viord  bapt'i%Q  is,  to  dip  all 
over,  to-  wa(h.  I  will  alfo  add,  that  the  word  fignifies,  to  wafh 
the  body,  or  any  thing,  all  over.  What  I  mean  is,  that  thefe 
are  the  fignification  of  the  words  baptifma  and  bapti%u,  which  are 
rendered  baptifm,  and,  to  baptize. 

I  am  now  to  produce  evidence,  that  this  is  a  juft  and  accurate 
definition  of  the  words. 

You  will  obferve,  that  this  is  quite  different  from  thtfulje&j 
of  baptifm;  that  is  another  fubje<a,  which  muft  be  attended  to 
in  its  place. 

The  evidence  which  T  have  to  offer,  in  order  to  fix  precifely 
the  jufl  fenfe  and  meaning  of  the  words  hapiifm  and  to  baptize,    ^ 
is  coRtainjsd  in  the  following  fads.     The 

I  ft.  Comprifes  what  the  Greek  Lexicon,  Concordance,  and 
two  Englifti  I)i(5tionanes,  teftify  of  the  words. 


16  The  Mode  and  Subje^s       [Serm.  II. 

Schrevelius's  Lexicon  teftifies,  the  import  of  bapttfm  is  lotto, 
wafliing.  Alfo  that  to  baptl%e  fignlfies  to  «t<j/7j,  to  put  under 
water,  or  under  any  other  liquid  thing ;  to  fink,  dip  in,  duck  or 
plunge  over  head,  to  immerfe. 

Butterwcrth's  Concordance  fays,  Baptifm  is  an  ordinance  of 
the  New  Teftament,  inftituted  by  Jefus  Chrift,  whereby  a  pro- 
ieffed  believer  in  Chrift  is,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  immerfed  in  and  covered  with 
water,  and  then  raifed  up  out  of  it,  as  a  fign  of  his  fellowlhip 
with  Chrift  in  his  death,  burial  and  refurredion,  and  a  fign  of 
his  own  death  to  fm,  and  refurre(5^ion  to  newnefs  of  life  here, 
and  to  life  eternal  hereafter.  The  fame  Concordance  defines 
the  word  to  baptize  thu? — to  dip,  immerfe,  or  plunge. 

t.ntick's  Didionary  fays,  that — Baptifm  is  a  facrament  that 
admits  into  the  church. — Bapt'izer,  one  who  chriftens,  or  dips. 
—Baptijlery,  the  place  of  baptizing  at,  a  font — Baptize^  to 
chrilteii,  plunge,  overwhelm.— i^fl//iz^^,  admitted  to  bap- 
liirn,  dipt,  &:c. 

Bailey's  Dictionary,  fpeaking  of  baptifm,  or  rather  the  place 
In  which  perfons  were  baptized,  fays,  Baptjjlery  is  either  the 
place  or  veflel  in  which  perfons  are  baptized.  In  ancient  times, 
this  being  performed  by  immerfion,  the  perfons  fo  initiated 
went  into  a  river  and  were  plunged  ;  but  in  the  time  of  Conftan- 
tine  the  Great,  chapels  or  places  on  purpofe  to  baptize  in, 
were  built  in  great  cities,  which  was  performed  in  the  eaftern 
and  warmer  countries  by  dipping  the  perfons ;  but  in  procefs 
of  time,  in  the  weftem  and  colder  countries,  fprinkling  was 
fubftituted  in  place  of  dipping  ;  which  was  the  origin  of  our 
fonts  in  churches.  ' 

2.  J  will  repeat  fome  of  the  attendant  or  circumflantial 
fa<51s,  which  have  relation  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  that 
you  may  look  at  them  and  judge  for  yourfelves,  whether  the 
preceding  definitions  appear  juft. 

John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan. 

He  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  becaufe  there  was  much  water 
there. 

The  name  of  the  place,  where  baptifm  was  adminiftered,  is 
baptifterion,  or  baptijlery^  which  fignifies  a  place  in  which  to  walh 
the  body  all  over. 

Baptifm  fignifies  to  dip,  plunge,  immerfe,  or  wafh  the  body 
all  over  in  water. 

Baptizer  fignifies  one  who  dips,  plunges,  or  wafhes  the  body 
all  over  in  water. 


Serm.  II.]  of  Baptifnu  27 

To  baptize  fignifies  to  plunge  under  water,  to  dip,  or  to  wafh 
the  body  all  over. 

To  be  baptized  is  to  be  plunged,  immerfed,    or  wafhed  all 
over  in  water. 

Does  this  whole  matter,  taking  fo  many  of  the  words,  and 
Como.  circumftances,  and  finding  them  all  fo  well  agreeing  to- 
gether, help  you,  in  any  degree,  to  the  definiticn  of  the  word 
baptize?  Suppofmg  thefe  things  be  lads,  and  you  had  never 
had  any  prejudice  for  or  againft  the  word  baptize,  would  you 
be  able  to  gather  the  meaning  of  it  from  what  hath  been  faid  l: 
There  is  an  objc(^icn  ftarting  in  the  minds  of  fome  of  you, 
which  fhould  be  now  obviated,  left  it  prejudice  your  minds 
from  the  truth. 

The  objedion  is,  Do  not  the  words  fignify  fome  o^jer  things,- 
as  well  as  ihofe  which  have  been  mentioned  ? 

ylrif.  I  have  thought  they  did  :  but  1  have  fearched  in  fev- 
eral  didicnaries,  and  read  many  authors  upon  the  words,  yet 
have  not  found  one  didionary  which  has  given  a  definition  of 
the  woids  different  from  what  I  have  given;  nor  one  author 
who  has  been  able  to  fhow,  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  words 
is  any  otherwife  than  vrhat  1  have  mentioned.  Befides,  the  very 
ccurie  of  argumentation  which  Dr.  Lathrop,  Mr.  Cleave- 
LAND  and  others  have  taken,  by  which  to  prove  that  baptixb- 
hath  fome  other  iignification  than  to  dip,  immerfe,  to  bury  or 
overwhelm,  is  an  implicit  confeffion  that  they  were  not  able  to 
prove  any  fuch  thing.  It  is  alfo  a  flrcng  prefumptive  argu- 
ment,  that  no  different  fignification  can  be  found. 

Their  argum.enL  is  this :  Bapio  fignifies,  in  one  inftance,  in 
the  Old  Teftament,  to  wet  v/ith  the  dew  of  heaven.  Baptt%d  is 
th;  offspring  oHaptC)  and  ccnfequently  may  be  taken  in  the  fame 
fenfe.  This  argument  is  of  the  fame  weight  with  the  follow- 
ing :  My  father  believes  in  fprinkling,  as  being  baptifm  :  I 
am  his  offspring,  and  confcquently  I  believe  the  fame ;  when 
the  fad  is,  I  am  largely  convinced  that  it  is  no  fuch  thing. 
Would  gentlemen  employ  fuch  an  argument,  did  not  their  caufe 
labour  ?  Such  an  argument,  wlien  it  ftands,  as  it  does,  at  the 
front  of  all  their  fuppofed  evidence,  is  an  i.mplicit  confefliona 
tliat  they  cannot  prove  what  they  wifh  to.* 

_  *  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  met  with  Cole's  Latin  DiSHonary^  wh-cn 
gives  one  Englifh  of  baptlzo,  to  fprinkU.  It  hath,  Indeed,  been  matter  of  no 
little  furprife,  that  all  modern  didionary  compilers  have  not  given  one  defl*. 
niiion  of  the  word  baptize,  to  fprinkle ;  for  it,  in^Jecd,  is  one  fisnifigatioi:^- 

£   2 


]  8  The  Mode  and  Subjecfs  [Serm.  II. 

This  matter  will  have  farther  attention  in  another  place. 

3.  The  words  baptifmos  and  baptlzo  have  two,  and  only 
two,  tranflations  in  the  New-Teftament.  Thefe  two  are, 
lapttfm  and  tuaJIAng.  They  are  very  generally  rendered, 
haptijiriy  or  to  bapti%e.  This  is  their  iifual  tranflatlon.  But 
feveral  times  in  Markf  Luke,  and  in  the  Epiflle.tothe  Hebreivs, 
they  are  rendered  waftiing.  As  tlie  wafhing  of  pots,  and  cups^ 
and  brazen  vefTds  and  tables,  or  feats  on  which  they  reclined, 
when  they  ate  meat ;  and  diaphorois  baptifmols  ia  Hebrew  is 
rendered  divers  ivnJJjtngs. 

In  the  law  given  by  Mofes,  the  people  were,  on  many  oc- 
eafions,  to  bathe  their  bodies,  and  wafh  their  clothes  in  water  ; 
and  alfo  to  put  their  pots  and  cups  and  brazen  vefFels  into  wa- 
ter, that  they  might  be  cleanfed  from  ceremonial  uncleannefs. 
To  thefe  legal  ceremonies  the  Pharifees  had  added  traditional 
ones,  which  were,  no  doubt,  obfervtd  in  the  fame  manner  as 
thofe  appointed  by  the  Lord.  If  fo,  then  the  wafliing  of  pots, 
^'c.  in  Mark,  was  putting  them  into  water,  as  the  command 
was  to  do,  Lev'it,  xi.  32.  The  divers  wafhings  in  Heh,  ix.  10. 
were  ceremonial  wafhings,  or  bathings,  in  which  the  body  was 
waflied,  or  dipped.  Numb,  xix.  19.  This  being  the  cafe,  does 
iiot  this  matter  go  to  confirm,  or  determine,  what  is  the  defini- 
tion of  baptifm  ? 

4.  We  will  now  mention  a  few  noted  witnefTe?,  who  have 
given  their  teftimony  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  bapti%6. 

Calvin,  a  very  warm  oppofer  of  the  Baptifts,  (hall,  as  a  wit- 
nefs  in  this  caufe,  fpeak  firft.  His  teftimony  is,  Howbeit,  the 
very  word  of  baptizing  fignifieth  to  dip." 

Zanchius,  as  brought  forward  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Butterworth, 

•which  thepradice  of  many  Chriflians,  for  two  er  three  hundred  years  paft, 
has  given  to  the  word. 

Had  all  lexicons,  and  all  didlonarles,  for  the  two  laft  centuries,  borne 
united  teftimony,  that  one  fenfe  of  the  word  baftizd  was  to  fprinkle,  it 
would  not  have  heen  half  fo  unaccountable  as  it  now  is  that  they  have  fo 
generaiiy  retained  the  ancient  and  primitive  fignifications,  and  refufed  to 
rtdopt  the  modern  one,  which  prejudice,  convenience  and  modern  praftice 
have  given  to  it.  Indeed,  could  a  thoufand  modern  lexicons  and  diAionaries 
he  found,  which  ftiould  fay,  to  fprinkle  is  one  fenfe  in  which  baptlzZ  is  ufed, 
it  would  all  come  to  nothing,  unlefs  they  Ihould  tcftify  that  this  is  one  of  its 
^acicnt  and  primitive  fignifications :  and  even  then,  it  w-ould  come  to  no 
more  than  this,  that  the  word  is  lefs  determinate,  than  it  is  now  fuppofed 
to  be  Could  they  do  this,  it  would  be  ftill  nothing,  unlefs  they  prove  the 
fcrlptures  ufe  it  in  this  fenfe,  which  they  cannot  do.  i:ut  if  they  could,  it 
^Yould  not  bt  fully  to  their  point,  unlcfs  they  can  Ihow  that  it  is  thus  ufed  lu 
application  to  the  01  finance, 


oerm.  II.3  of  Baptifnu  19 

fhall  be  my  next  witnefs.  He  fays,  bapttzo  is  to  immerfe.;, 
plunge  under,  to  overwhelni  in  water. 

I  could  quoie,  or  bring  forward,  a  multitude  of  witneffeSj 
and  all  from  our  own  order,  the  Pedobaptifts,  to  prove  the 
fame  point.  But  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  tliree  witnefles,  if 
they  be  good  ones,  every  word  fhall  be  eftablilhed.  We  will 
therefore  produce  but  one  more  ;  that  Ihali  be  good  Dr.  Owen. 
"  For  the  original  and  natural  fignificalion  of  it  {baptizo)  figni- 
iies  to  dip,  to  plunge." 

5.  I  will  mention  to  you  a  Greek  word,  which  Paul  re- 
peatedly ufe?,  as  fignifying  the  fame  thing  as  iaptizot  and 
where  he  means  the  fame  thing,  namely,  baptifm. 

In  I  Cor.  vi.  ii.  Paul,  fpeaking  to  the  Corinthians  of  di- 
vers kinds  of  vile  fmners,  fays,  "  And  fuch  were  fome  of  you  ; 
but  ye  are  wafhed,"  &c. 

EpL  V.  26.  That  he  might  fancflify  and  cleanfe  it  (the 
church)  with  the  nvajhtng  of  water,  by  the  word. 

Heh.  X.  22.  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  af. 
furance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts  fprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
fcience,  and  our  bodies  ivajhed  with  pure  water. 

The  Pedobaptifts  acknowledge  that  luajhing,  in  thefe  texts, 
means  baptifm^  and  I  know  not  that  any  of  them  deny  it.  Bap- 
tifm and  wafhing  appear  to  be  ufed  as  fynonymous  words,  or 
as  words  fignifying  the  fame  thing.  If  this  be  the  cafe,  then 
the  two  words,  baptizo  and  loud,  which  are  tranflated,  one  to 
baptize,  and  the  other  to  wafh,  mean  the  fame  thing,  and  are 
thus  intended  by  the  Apoflle.  Then,  provided  we  can  deter- 
mine what  louo  means,  we  can  alfo  determine  what  is  the  figni- 
fication  of  baptizo.  This  word,  louut  fignifies  to  wa(h,  and  to 
bathe  the  body  in  water  ;  for  thus  it  is  generally  if  not  univer- 
fally  ufed,  and  from  it  is  loutron,  a  Ijath,  or  place  to  wafh  the 
body  in.  Befides,  the  word  louo  is  never  ufed  in  tlie  New-Tef- 
tament,  nor  any  where  elfe,  to  my  knowledge,  to  fignify  either 
fprinkling  or  common  wafhing.  Its  appropriate  fenfe  appears 
to  be,  bathing,  or  wafhing  any  thing  all  over ;  as  you  may  fee, 
A^s  ix.  37.  and  xvi.  33  ;  2  Peter  ii.  22  ;  which  are  the  only 
places  where  I  recollect  the  word  louo  is  ufed,  fave  where  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm  appears  to  be  referred  to.  This  being 
the  cafe,  the  matter  appears  juft  as  it  would,  provided  the  or* 
dinance  included  the  bathing  of  the  body  in  water.  This  is 
letting  fcripture  interpret  Iifelf  j  and  the  interpretation  which 
it  gives  is,  baptifm  is  bathing,  or  wafhing  the  body  in  water. 
This,  therefore,  may  help  ygu  a  l^tle  towards  deterznining  in. 


20  ^    The  Mode  and  Subje^s         [Serm.  11. 

your  minds  what  is  the  fignification  of  bapti%Q.  For  km  is 
repeatedly  ufed  in  fcripture,  as  importing  the  fame  mode  of 
vvalhing  which  is  commanded  in  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 

6.  Paul's  defcription  of  the  mode  of  baptizing,  or  of  what 
is  done  to  thofe  who  are  baptized,  may  afford  you  farther 
light  upon  the  fubjed. 

Paul  brings  this  matter  up  to  the  Roman  and  Coloflian 
Chriftians,  as  a  matter  well  known  to  them.  To  the  former 
he  fays,  Ro7n.  vi.  4.  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptifm  into  death,  that  like  as  Chrift  was  raifed  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo  fliould  walk 
in  newnefs  of  life.  To  the  other  he  fays,  Col.  ii.  12.  Buried 
with  him  in  baptifm,  wherein  alfo  ye  aie  rifen  with  him, 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  •  jod,  who  hath  raifed 
him  from  the  dead. 

Upon  thefe  texts,  Dr.  Doddridge  has  the  following  note. 
"  It  feems  the  part  of  candour  to  confefs,  that  here  is  an  allu- 
fion  to  baptifm  by  immerfion,  as  was  moft  ufual  in  tliefe  early 
times."  fiere  the  good  dodtor  fays,  "  as  was  mojt  ufual ;" 
this  I  fhall,  by  and  by,  explain  to  you." 

In  the  mean  time,  you  will  pleafe  to  pay  due  attention  to 
what  was  done  to  thofe  who  were  baptized,  and  which  ap- 
pears to  be  familiar  to  the  Roman  and  Coloffian  Chriftians. 
The  Apoflle  makes  no  remarks,  and  explains  nothing  to  them, 
but  fpeaks  to  them  as  though  they  would  and  did  well  under- 
ftand  what  he  meant,  when  he  faid,  *'  We  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptifm  unto  death  ;"  and,  "  Buried  with  him  in 
baptifm."  It  is  plain  fadt,  that  Paul  thus  fpeaks,  and  it  alfo 
appears,  very  plainly,  that  he  had  no  apprehenfion  but  that  he 
fhould  be  underftood. 

Bifhop  Hoadly's  declaration" appears  to  be  much  in  point : 
*  If  baptifm,'  fays  he,  *  had  been  then,'  I  e.  in  the  apoftles' 
days,  '  performed  as  it  is  now  among  us,  we  fhould  never  have 
fo  much  as  heard  of  this  form  of  expreffion,  of  dying  and  rif- 
ing  again  in  this  rite.'* 

Thefe  things  I  have  thought  it  my  duty  to  lay  before  you, 
that  I  might  aflift  you,  by  a  number  of  plain  facets,  to  form  a 
judgment,  each  one  for  himfelf,  what  the  meaning  of  baptifm 
is,  and  what  the  word  to  baptize  fignifies. 

I  have  ftill  more  light  upon  this  fubje«5l,  and  fhall,  in  the 
next  difcourfe,  lay  it  within  your  view.  It  will  perhaps  be,  to 
fome  of  you,  more  convincing  than  any  thing  which  I  have  as 
yet  exhibited.     iBut  previoufly  I  will  make  one  obfervation, 

*  Tsn  J-cuers. 


h> 


Serm.  IL]  of  Bapiif?n.  21 

and  It  is  this  :  all  the  evidence  which  we  have  been  exhibiting, 
we  have  on  one  fide  of  the  queftion  ;  and,  if  I  miftake  not> 
none  on  the  other  to  countera(5l  it  :  for  if  my  memory  and 
judgment  be  corred,  the  wifeft  and  beftofmen,  of  our  own 
denomination,  have  alTerted,  that  thefe  things  are  fo.  I  do  not 
fay  that  all  good  men  have  ;  but  the  moft  learned  have,  aad 
fome  who  have  appeared  very  pious. 

But  you  will  fay,  Why  have  they  not  pradifed  differently, 
if  tliey  have  thus  believed  ?  I  am  not  anfwerable  for  their  prac- 
tice ;  but,  if  the  Lord  will,  I  fliall,  ere  long,  give  you  the  rea- 
fons  which  they  aflign. 

I  fliall  only  add,  for  the  prefent,  two  or  tliree  confequences, 
and  then  leave  the  fubjedl  for  your  confideration. 

1.  The  Baptifts  have,  againlt  our  pradice,  and  for  theirs, 
that  kind  of  evidence  which  is,  perhaps,  in  all  cafes  but  the 
prefent,  confidered  the  nioft  unequivocal  and  certain.  This 
evidence  is  given  in  by  a  cloud  of  witneffes,  who,  whilft  they  are 
bearing  their  teftimony,  condemn  themfelves  every  fentence 
they  utter.  If  tliefe  men,  who  are  confeffed  by  both  fides  to 
be  both  pious  and  learned,  may  be  believed,  the  caufe  will  moft 
ceitainly  be  determined  againft  us ;  for  there  was  never  a 
clearer  cafe.  They  unitedly  teftify  that  the  fcripture  mode  of 
bapiifm  is  immerfion,  but  omit  the  pra(Sice.  In  this  they  con- 
demn themfelves. 

2.  The  fcripture  fenfe,  and,  for  aught  appears,  the  only 
fenfe,  of  baptifm,  is,  dipping,  immerfion,  burying  in  water,  be- 
ing overwhelmed,  and  the  like. 

3.  We  are  brought  to  this  dilemma,  either  to  commence 
Baptifts,  as  to  the  mode,  or  do  as  cur  fathers  have  done,  con= 
fefs  the  truth  in  theory,  and  negle<5t  it  in  pra(fllce. 


SERMON    III. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 
Go  yet  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations t  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Fat  her  i  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoji  \  teach- 
ing  them  to  obferve  all  things  avhatfoever  I  have  commanded 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
<world.      Amen. 

MEN,  brethren,  and  fathers,  we  are  ftill  upon  a  very  im- 
portant fubjedt— a  fubjeft  which  highly  concerns  us  as 
Chrittians — a  fubje^  in  which  our  feelings,  our  reputation,  and 


22  The  Mode  and  Subjeds        [Serm.  III. 


The  Mode 


our  peace  too,  may^not  be  a  little  concerned.  Many  things^ 
not  to  fay  every  thin^,  call  upon  us  not  to  go  too  faft  ;  and, 
at  the  fame  time,  obedience  to  our  common  Lord  forbids  all 
backvvardnefs,  in  purfuing  where  his  truth  and  Spirit  lead  us. 

All  which  I  requeft  of  you  is,  with  candour  hear,  wiih 
readinefs  obey,  what  truth  fhall  didate. 

Should  we,  after  lorg  and  ferious  deliberation,  be  obliged  to 
believe  and  pradife  differently  from  what  we  have  heretofore 
done,  we  fhall  be  much  expofed  co  two  things  :  one  is,  to  be 
reviled  ;  the  other,  to  revile  again.  What  we  fhall  need  is, 
patience  to  bear  the  one,  and  grace  that  we  may  avoid  the  other. 

Perhaps  human  nature  is  more  inclined  to  nothing  than  to 
an  overbearing  fpirit.  It  is  perfe<5lly  confonant  with  human 
nature  to  make  ourfelves,  and  not  the  fcriptures,  the  ftandard 
of  both  faith  and  pracftice.  Tlie  natural  confequence  of 
this  is,  cenfure  againft  all  who  dare  to  think,  or  aft,  as  we  do 
not.  To  guard  you  againft  unreafonable  and  common  preju- 
dice, I  will,  for  your  confideration,  fuggeft  a  thought,  wh'.ch 
"we  may  do  well  to  remember  ;  and  it  is  this  :  many,  who 
fhall  believe  and  praftife  as  we  have  long  done,  may  be  as 
honeft  and  faithful  as  we  then  were.  This  being  true,  the 
following  confequence  is  plain,  that  the  line  of  conduit  which 
the  Baptifts  ought  to  have  pradifed,  in  months  and  years  paft, 
towards  us,  the  fame,  if  we  be  Baptifts,  will  it  become  us  to 
purfue  with  relation  to  others.  It  requires  not  much  forefight 
to  difcover,  that  we  fhall  need  much  of  that  wifdom  which  is 
profitable  to  direct. 

Whiift  it  may  be  indifpenfable  with  us  to  ufe  every  prudent 
mean  to  diffufe  that  light  which  God  may  gracioufly  afford  us, 
it  will  be  our  wifdom  to  do  every  thing  in  fuch  a  manner  as 
not  to  heighten,  but,  if  poffible,  to  lower  the  prejudices  of 
good  people. 

Whiift  you,  my  dear  friends  and  people,  know  thai  light 
chafeth  away  the  darknefs,^  and  that  truth  w"lll  ultimately  pre- 
vail againft  every  error  ;  I'folicit  your  candour  and  prayerful 
attention,  that  error  may  not  be  retained,  or  prevail  againft 
any  of  us,  to  our  wounding. 

Our  attention  hath  already  been  called  to  the  definition  of 
a  number  of  words,  which  relate  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
to  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  together  with  fome  other 
texts,  which  were  fuppofed  to  throw  light  upon  the  fubjeft, 
and  alfo  to  fome  evidence  in  fupport  of  the  given  definitions. 
As  the  great  queftioa  turns  upon  what  is  commanded,  and  as 


Serm.  II.]  of  Baptifm.  ■'  2-3 

that  cannot  be  otherwife  known  thaft  Vjf.  making  fure  the  im- 
port of  the  words  ufed,  we  (hall  therefbse'fearch  for  additional 
light  and  certainty,  by  inquiring —        '  .      ' 

4.     How  the  apoftles  and   primitive  (^ri|lians  underftood 
this  matter,  and  how  they  pra(5tired.  '      ^ 

If  this  can  be  made  plain,  then,  perhaps,  your  minds  will  be 
falisfied,  and  your  judgments  made  up. 
I  proceed  to  lay  the  evidence  before  you. 
There  appears  no  neceffitv  of  fpending  time  to  produce  evi- 
dence that  the  apoftles  underftood  the  matter  to  be  as  I  have 
proved  to  you  that  "it  was :  for  they,  no  doubt,  underftood  the 
words  which  Chrift  fpake,  and  the  commands  which  he  gave  : 
befides,  if  the  apoftles  and  primitive  church  pra<5tifed  thus,  it  is 
evident  that  they  thus  underftood  it ;  for  doubtlefs  they,  ef- 
pecially  the  apoftles,  were  honeft  men,  and  pradifed  as  they 
underftood  Jefus  Chrift  to  have  dire<rted  them. 

I  will  here  make  two  obfervations  to  you  ;  and  I  wifti  you 
to  remember  them. 

The  firft  is,  no  perfon  fliould,  efpecially  in  important  mat- 
ters, make  up  his  judgment,  that  any  particular  fubjeiJl  is  true, 
till  he  has  evidence  of  its  truth. 

The  other  is,  the  beft  proof  which  the  nature  of  any  cafe 
admits  of,  may  and  ought  to  be  confidered  as  evidence,  and  fo 
received  by  us,  as  to  thofe  things  we  are  called  to  believe  and 
pracfllfe. 

There  are  different  degrees  of  evidence  :  the  higheft  kind 
produces  knowledge.  When  the  evidence  is  fmall,  it  produces 
a  weak  and  dubious  belief.  But  where  It  is  fuch  that,  on  fup- 
pofition  the  thing  be  true,  the  evidence  could  not  be  greater 
than  it  is,  there  we  are  obliged  to  yield  our  aiTent,  and  we  do 
violence  to  our  reafon  if  we  will  not  believe. 

The  evidence,  which  we  have  with  refpecH:  to  the  practice 
of  the  apoftles  in  the  matter  of  baptizing,  differs  in  degree, 
and,  in  fome  meafure,  in  kind,  from  the  evidence  which  we 
have  refpe(^ing  the  practice  of  the  church  in  later  ages  as  to 
the  fame  matter.  But  if  we  have,  with  refpedt  to  the  pra<5lice 
of  both,  the  beft  evidence  which  the  different  cafes  admit  of, 
we  are  under  obligation  to  believe  the  evidence  good,  and  the 
fa^T:s  true  which  are  fupported  by  it. 

We  hav^e  much  the  fame  kind  of  evidence  with  rerpe<5l  to 
the  praftice  of  the  apoftles,  which  we  have  as  to  the  practice 
of  the  church  for  many  ages  after  them.  Mr.  Baxter,  bifhop 
Hoadly,  and  others,  t^ify,   that    the  apoftoiic  pradice  was, 


24  The  Mode  and  Subjeds        [Serm.  IIL 

immerfion.  We  have,  moreover,  as  to  their  pra<5lice,  a  much 
higher  kind  of  evidence.  In  fupport  of  their  pradice,  I  fhall 
produce  the  beft  kind  of  evidence,  and  afterwards,  whilft  fpeak- 
ing  of  the  practice  of  the  church  in  fucceeding  ages,  may  oc- 
cafionally  bring  forward  fome  of  the  other  kind  of  evidence, 
in  fupport  of  the  apoftles*  pradlice. 

As  to  the  pra(5lice  of  the  apoftles,  in  the  adminiftratlon  of 
baptifm,  I  obferve,  we  have  in  the  fcriptures  four  diftin^l 
fources  of  evidence.     The 

1  ft.  is  this.  When  baptifm  is  mentioned  by  the  difciples 
and  apoftles,  and  the  common  word  is  not  ufed,  they  uniform- 
ly employ  one  particular  word,  and  this  word  is  of  very  deter- 
minate fignification,  and  expreffes  the  bathing,  or  wafhing,  of 
the  body  in  water,  as  Heb.  x.  2  2  :  Having  our  bodies  (Uoumenoi) 
ivafied  with  pure  water.  Ads  xxii.  16.  Arife  and  be  baptiz- 
ed, and  {apoloufai)  wafh  away  thy  fms.  i  Cor.  vi.  ir.  But 
ye  are  {apoloufajlhe)  nvajhed.  By  the  determinate  fignification 
of  this  word,  their  practice  appears  to  be  immerfion. 

2.  The  apoftles  were  commanded  to  dip,  immerfe,  or 
plunge  all  over  in  water,  the  perfons  whom,  they  admitted  to 
this  ordinance.  This  is  evident  from  the  determinate  fignifi- 
cation of  the  word  to  baptize.  Says  the  command.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  &c.  We 
have  before  proved  what  is  the  fignification  of  this  word,  and 
confequently  what  Chrift  commanded  his  difciples,  when  he 
fent  them  to  baptize. 

I  do  not  now  fay  that  die  apoftles  immerfed  any ;  but  this 
Is  what  I  fay,  they  were  commanded  thus  to  do.  I  leave  it  for 
you  to  determine,  whether  they  did,  or  whether  they  did  not. 

3.  I  obferve  to  you,  that  the  New-Teftament,  wherever  it 
fpeaks  of  the  apoftles  baptizing  any,  fays  they  immerfed  them, 
or  dipjt  them  all  over  in  water.  For  this  is  the  plain,  literal 
and  common,  if  not  the  only  fignification  of  the  word.  I  ftill 
leave  it  with  you  to  determine  whether  the  apoftles  did,  or  did 
not,  pradife  thus. 

Left  fome  of  you  may  have  forgotten  what  I  have  before 
proved  to  you,  and  confequently  entertain  fome  doubt  whether 
baptifm  may  not  fometimes  fignify  the  application  of  water  in 
a  different  way ;  we  will  make  two  or  three  obfervations. 

1.  The  plain,  literal  and  common  fignification  of  the  word 
is  to  immerfe,  over^'helm,  dip,  or  to  plunge  all  over. 

2.  There  appears  to  be  no  evidence  that  it  is  ever  ufed  fo 
much  as  once,  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  to  fignify  the  applica- 


Serm.  111.]  of  Baptlfnu  25 

tlon  of  vvater  in  any  other  fenfe.  Even  In  thofe  paiTages  where 
I  have  in  time  paft  fuppofed  that  the  meanini;  might  be,  and 
probably  was,  ivajhing  without  immerfion,  the  fenfe  appears  to 
be  putting  into  water  or  immerfion,  and  not  what  we  com- 
monly underftand  by  the  word  wa(hing.  Of  this  you  may  be 
convinced  by  confiderinfi  the  treatment  to  which  the  Jews  were 
accuftomed  with  refp?<5l  to  thofe  veffels  which  were  ceremo- 
nially unclean.  They  were  to  baptize  them,  or  put  them  into 
water,  as  ycu  may  fee,  LevU,  xi.  32.  "  And  upon  whatfoever 
any  of  them,  when  they  are  dead,  doth  fall,  it  fti^ill  be  unclean  ; 
whether  it  be  any  veffel  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  fkin,  or  fack  ; 
tuhatfoever  'ifeffel  it  be,  wherein  any  work  is  done,  it  mu!^  be  put 
into  nvater^  and  it  Ihall  be  unclean  until  the  even  }  fo  it  fhall  be 
cleanfed." 

3.  I  will  obferve  to  you  tliat  It  would  moft  vifibly  be  a  re- 
flexion upon  the  great  Teaclier  who  came  from  God,  to  fap- 
pofe  that  he  Ihould,  when  appointing  a  pofitive  inftitution,  ufe 
words  afide  from  their  plain  and  commonly  received  fenfe  ;  that 
too  without  giving  any  Intimation  of  his  ufmg  the  words  in  any 
fenfe  differing  from  the  common,  efpecially  when  he  was  fet- 
tlng  up  a  new  inftitution,  about  which  his  moft  faithful  follow- 
ers could,  in  all  fucceeding  generations,  know  nothing  but  from 
the  words  ufed  In  and  about  the  inftitutioa.  Does  not  all  this 
appear  plain  and  reafonable  ? 

Now  the  Bible  in  the  plain,  literal  and  common  fenfe  of 
the  words  which  It  ufes,  fays,  the  apoftles  dipt,  plunged  or 
immerfed  all  fuch  as  they  admitted  to  baptifm.  You  will 
judge  for  yourfelves  whether  the  apoftles  pra<5lifed  thus,  or 
whether  they  did  not. 

4.  The  pra(flice  of  the  apoftles  is  farther  Illuftrated  and  con- 
firmed by  what  Paul  tells  the  Roman  and  Coloffian  Chriftians, 
with  refped  to  what  took  place  when  they  received  tlie  ordinance 
of  baptifm.  He  fays  to  the  former,  *'  We  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptifm  into  death  :"  To  the  other  he  fays,  «  Buried  with 
him  tn  baptilm."  Paul  fpeaks  of  this  matter  as  a  thing  perfedly 
underftood  by  Chriftians  in  his  time,  and  ufed  it  as  an^rgument 
to  promote  their  weanednefs  from  the  world,  and  growth  In 
(an<5lifi cation.  But  have  you  not  either  paffed  over  thefe  and 
fimilar  paifages,  without  noticing  them,  or  confidered  them 
rather  hard  to  be  underftood  ?  But  how  eafy  is  it  to  underftand 
them,  provided  the  apoftles  pra<5iifed  as  the  fcriptures  fay  they 
did  !  I  ftill  leave  it  with  you  to  determine  for  yourfelves  hcwr 
the  apoftles  pradlifed. 

C 


26  The  Mode  and  Suhjeds      [Serm.  Ill, 

This  is  the  beft  evidence  which  the  nature  of  the  fubjecH:  ad- 
mits. This  matter,  the  apoftles'  pra<5lice,  was  tranfaded  many 
ages  fince.  We  have  the  teflimony  of  the  fcriptures  as  to  what 
it  was ;  this  is  evidence  enough  :  however,  we  fhall  occafionally 
add  the  teftimony  of  nnen. 

We  fhali  now  attend  to  the  practice  of  the  church,  and  difcov- 
er,  if  we  can,  how  it  was  for  ages  after  the  apoftles.  The  beft  ev- 
idence which  tliis  part  of  my  fubjecl  admits,  is  that  of  human 
teftimony.*  I  by  no  means  reft  the  merit  of  the  caufe  on  this 
evidence.  At  the  fime  tin^.e,  it  may  weaken  the  prejudices  of 
fome,  and  be  a  mean  of  confirming  others  in  the  belief  of  the 
truth. 

It  appears  fo  plain  a  cafe  that  we  can  hardly  refufe  affent  to 
it,  that  as  the  church  hath  for  a  feries  of  ages  pra(5lifed,  fo  have 
tbey  believed.  When  we  ftiali  fee  what  their  pracflice  hath 
been,  we  fliall  ihe  more  eafily  concede  that  their  belief  hath  been 
fimilar. 

What  is  now  before  us  Is  to  produce  and  to  receive  evidence 
relative  to  the  pra<5lice  of  the  primitive  church.  It  is  the  fol- 
lowing : — 

I.  This  evidence  confifts  in  the  united  teftimony  of  both 
thofe  who  pra<5lifed  the  adminiftration  of  the  ordinance  by  im- 
merfion,  and  thofe  who  ufed  fprinkling,  and  called  it  baptizing. 

Mofheim,  a  very  noted  church  hiftorian,  and  not  very  friend- 
ly to  the  Baptifts,  bears  dired  teftimony  that  John,  Chrift's 
forerunner,  and  the  church  in  the  firft  ages  of  Chriftianity, 
pracflifed  immerfion  as  the  mode  of  baptizing.  The  following 
you  may  take  as  a  fample  of  his  evidence.  "  The  exhortations 
of  this  refpe<aable  meffsnger  (John)  were  not  without  efFe<5l ; 
and  thofe  who,  moved  by  his  folemn  admonition,  had  formed 
the  refolution  of  correding  their  evil  difpofitions,  and  amending 
their  lives,  were  initiated  into  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer 
by  the  ceremony  of  immerfion,  or  baptifm."f 

Speaking  of  the  church  in  the  fecond  century,  he  fays, "  The 
perfons  that  were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the 
creed,  confc/Ted  and  renounced  their  fms,  and  particularly  the 
devil  in  his  pompous  allurements,  were  immeifed  under  water, 

*  Clirlft's  promife  to  his  apoftle*.  to  their  fucccffors,  and  to  the  Church 
may  affure  us,  that  the  ordinance  of  haptifm,  by  which  his  people  fljould 
be  diflinjiuifhed  from  the  world,  wcmid  ever  continue.  Therefore  could 
we  know  what  the  Church  hath  always  praaifcd,  efpecially  that  part  of 
it  which  hath  been  moft  feparate  from  the  worhi,  t!itn  thejr  pradlice  wouW 
afford  a  Orong  argument  in  favour  of  what  the  iriftitu'-ion  intended, 

I  Century  I,  chap.  iii.  fe(5t  3. 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifnu  2T 

and  received  into  Ghria's  kingdom  by  a  folema  invccation  of 
Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  according  to  the  expnfs  command 
of  our  blefTed  Lord.*  The  Doaor  fpeaking  of  Ibme  inferior 
fedts  of  the  feventeenth  century,  and  particularly  of  a  fed  called 
Coiiegiants,fays,  "  Thofe  adult  perfons,  that  defire  to  be  bapti- 
zed, receive  the  facrament  of  baptifm  acc(.rding  to  the  ancient 
and  primitive  manner  of  celebrating  that  inrtitutlon,  even  by 
imrmrfion,^''-\ 

Mr.  Bailey,  In  his  Etymological  Englifh  Didcionary,  fays, 
"  In  ancient  times,  this  (baptifm)  being  pei-^formed  by  im- 
mcrfiou,  the  perfons  fo  initiated  went  into  a  river,  &:c.  and  were 
plunged." 

John  Calvin,  in  his  InfiituUons^  Book  IV.  chap.  xv.  fed.  lo, 
fays,  "  It  is  certain  thai  the  manner  of  dipping  was  ufed  of  the 
old  church." 

Here  are  three  fubftantlal  wltneffes.  Thefe  might  be  fuffi- 
cient,  feeing  there  is  not  one  to  be  found  who  will,  or  dares,  give 
direct  and  pofitive  teftimony  againfl  the  truth  of  what  thefe 
affirm.  But  fince  there  are  an  hoft  who  (land  ready  to  give  in 
their  teftimony,  even  againft  their  own  pradlce,  we  will  hear 
what  two  more  of  them  will  teftify  relative  to  the  important 
caufe  now  on  trial. 

Thefe  two  (hall  be  Dr.  Cave  and  the  famous  Mr.  Baxter. 

Dr.  Cave,  a  great  fearcher  into  antiquity,  fays,  "  That  the 
party  baptized  was  wholly  immerfed,  or  put  under  water,  which 
was  the  common^  conjiant  and  ttniverfal  cuilom  of  thofe  times  ; 
whereby  they  did  fignificantiy  exprefs  the  great  end  and  effedls 
of  baptifm,  reprelentingChriil's  death,  bur'.al  and  refurredion, 
and,  in  conformity  thereto,  cur  dying  unto  fm,  tlie  deftrudion 
of  Its  power,  and  our  refurredion  to  a  new  courfe  of  life,"  &c.:|: 

Mod  remarkable  is  the  teftimony  which  Mr.  Baxter  gives  to 
tills  truth,  in  the  following  words  :  *'  It  is  commonly  confeffed 
by  us  to  the  Baptifts,  (as  our  commentators  declare)  that  in  the 
apoftlfcs'  time,  the  baptized  vere  dipped  overhead  in  v.ater,  and 
this  fi.^nifieth  their  profeffi  n  both  of  believing  die  burial  and 
refu rreiftion  of  Chrlft,  and  of  their  own  dying  unto  fin,  and  liv- 
ing, or  rifing  2?ain  to  nev^'nefs  of  life,  or  being  buried  and  rifen 
again  '.vith  Chrift,  as  the  apoftle  expoundeth  baptifm.  Col.  ir. 
12,  and  Kom.  iv,  6.  And  though  (faith  he)  we  have  thought  it 
lav;tui  "jj  dlfufe  the  manner  of  dipping  and  to  ufe  lefs  water,  yet 
we  prefume  not  to  change  the  ufe  and  figniiication  of  it ;  io  then 

*  Century  II.  part  ii.  chap.  v.  fedl  i  %.         f  Vol.  v.  p.  488. 
I  Ten  Letters. 


2S  The  Mode  and  Subjecls       [Serm.  IlL 

he  that  lignally  profe/lss  to  die  and  rife  again  in  baptifm  witli 
Chriftj  dolt),  fignally  profQCs  fa ving fait /j  and  repentance',  but  this 
do  all  they  that  are  baptized  according  to  the  apoilolic 
practice.  "* 

As  thefe  witneffes  teftify,  fo  do  all  learned  and  pious  men  who 
have  critically  attended  to  this  fubjecfl,  and  afterwards  given  in 
any  direct  and  pofitive  evidence  upon  the  matter. 

2.  The  evidence  as  to  the  pradice  of  the  primitive  church, 
confifts  in  the  tedimony  of  men  to  this  truth,  that  the  church 
did  for  thirteen  hundred  yeai*^  praiftife  immerfion,  fome  extreme 
cafes  excepted. 

The  only  evidence  which  I  purpofe  to  give  in  fupport  of  this 
for  the  prefent,  is  tlie  teftimony  of  the  author  of  Ten  Letters  to 
Bifhop  Hoadly  upon  the  mode  and  fubjects  of  baptifm,  and  the 
confeilion  of  Dr.  I.athrop  that  it  was  even  fo. 

The  author  of  the  Letters  aflerts  that  this  was  the  pradlice  of 
the  ciiurch  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after  the  commencement 
of  the  Chridian  era.  Dr.  LathropsfTents  that  this  was  the  fa(^  ; 
as  yen  may  fee,  by  reading  his  four  fermons  on  baptifm,  where 
he  gives  thefe  letters  a  particular  attention,  and  is  fuppofed  to 
affent,  where  he  makes  no  objedlion. 

3.  Ail  the  churches  in  Europe,  Afia  and  Africa,  ever  have 
done,  and  do  now,  pradtlfe  immerfion,  fave  thofe  who  are  now, 
or  have  been,  under  the  jurifdiAIon  of  the  Pontiffs  of  Rome. 

The  fame  witnefles  who  bore  their  teftimony  to  the  laft 
particular,  give  in  their  evidence  in  fupport  cf  this,  and  in  the 
fame  v,My  ;  the  one  aflerting  the  fact,  the  other  afisntizg  that 
it  is  even  Co.  ' 

4.  The  very  reafons  which  have  been  given  and  which  are 
dill  given  to  juftify  the  contrary  pradice,  are  a  plain  confeffion 
ihat  immerfion,  or  burying  the  fubjsdls  under  water,  was  the 
practice  of  the  apoftles  and  primitive  church  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm,  and  w-hat  Chrid  commanded  to  be  done. 

The  reafvTis  which  are  alleged  why  fprinkling  may  be  fubfti- 
tuted  for  immeifion,  are,  the  want  cf  health,  in  fome  inllances 
where  tliey  fuppofe  baptifm  to  be  necelTary  ;  the  weaknefs  of 
conftitution  with  refped  to  fome,  and  the  coldnefs  of  climate 
with  refpe»ft  to  many,  and  as  to  all  in  northern  climes  in  the 
wintry  feafon.  Heie  is  a  filent  acknowledgment,  that  it  is  not  the 
inftitution,  that  it  is  not  the  permiflion  of  Chrift,  but  mere  acci- 
dental and  local  circumftances,  which  make  it  lawful  to  lay  by 

*  Ten  Letter* 


Serm.  III.]  of  Baptifnu  29 

the  command  of  Chrlft,  and  to  receive  in  its  (lead  the  precepts 
and  commandments  of  men. 

Mr.  Bailer  fays,  in  his  Diaionary,  that  baptifm  was  perform- 
ed in  the  eaftern  and  warmer  countries  by  dipping  the  perfons 
all  over  ;  but  in  procefs  of  time,  in  the  weftern  and  colder 
countries,  fprinklilig  was  fubftituted  in  the  place  of  dipping. 

Dr.  Lathrop  in  his  fermons  implicitly  confeiTes  the  following 
extracts  to  be  both  true  and  genuine. 

Mr.  Baxter,  in  his  Paraphrofe  on  the  New-  Tejlament^  obferves 
on  Matth.  iii.  6.  "  We  grant  that  baptifm  then  was  by  wafhing 
the  whole  body  ;  and  did  net  the  difference  of  our  cold  country, 
as  to  that  hot  one,  teach  us  to  remeniber,  '  I  will  have  mercy 
and  not  facrifice,'  it  (hould  be  fo  here  " 

The  author  of  the  Letters  to  Bi/Joop  Hoadly^  in  the  twenty- third 
page,  writes  thus :  "  Mr.  Baxter,  we  have  already  feen,  excufes 
the  matter  by  the  coldnefs  of  our  climate.  Calvin,  the  celebra- 
ted reformer  of  Geneva,  obferves  in  his  Expofition  of  Afts 
viii.  38,  *  We  fee  here  what  was  the  baptifmal  rite  among  the 
ancients,  for  they  plunged  the  whole  body  in  the  water.'  Now 
it  is  the  cuftora  for  the  minliier  to  fprinkle  only  the  body  or 
head,  and  he  too  excufes  this  fprinkling,  but  how,  I  cannot  well 
recolledt,  not  having  Lni  book  at  hand.*' 

Blfhop  Burnet,  though  he  thus  defcrihes  the  primitive  bap-  - 
lifm,  *'  With  no  other  garments  but  that  might  ferve  to  cover 
nature,  they  at  firft  laid  them  down,  as  a  man  is  laid  in  the 
grave,  and  then  they  fald  thefe  words,  I  baptize,  or  wafh,  thee 
in  the  name,  &c.     Then  they  ralfed  them  up  again,  and  cleaa. 
garments  were  put  upon  them  ;  from  whence  came  the  phrafes 
of  being  baptized  into  Chrift's  death,  of  being  buried  wiih  him 
by  baptifm  into  death,  of  our  being  rifen  with  Chrift,and  of  our 
putting  on  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift;  of  putting  off  the  eld  man,  > 
and  putting  on  the  new,'' — and  though  he  juftly  obferves  that 
facraments  are  pofitive  precepts,  which  are  to  be  meafured  only, 
by  the  inftitution,  in  which  there  is  not  room  left  for  us  to  carry, 
them  any  farther  ; — yet  forgetting  his  own  meafure  of  the  infti- 
tution, viz.  the  party  baptized  was  laid  down  in  the  water,  as- 
a  man  is  laid  in  the  grave,  he  fays,  "  The  danger  in  cold  cli- 
mates may  be  a  very  good  reafon  for  changing  the  form  of/ 
baptifm  to  fprinkling,"* 

I  propofe  for  the  prefent  to  note  but  one  quotation  more,  andi 
that  Ihaii  be  in  the  words  or  Dr.  Wall,  as  quoted  in  the  Liters*, 

*  Buina's  Ejpofition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Artickv^ 
C  2  • 


so  The  Mode  and  Subjeds      [Sefm.  III. 

The  Dodlor,  in  giving  the  reafons  why,  in  Queen  Eb'zabeth's 
reign,  the  cuftom  of  dipping  was  laid  aiide,  oblerves,  ♦*  It  being 
allowed  to  weak  children  to  be  baptized  by  afFufion,  many 
found  ladies  and  gentlemen  firft,  and  then,  by  degrees,  the 
common  people,  would  obtain  the  favour  of  tlie  prieft  to  have 
their  children  pafs  for  weak  children,  too  tender  to  endure  dip- 
ping in  the  water."*    Now, 

6.  It  may  be  eafy  for  you  to  gather  what  is  the  outward  and 
vifibie  part  of  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 

It  is  to  immerfe  proper  fubjeifts  in  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  This  is  the  out- 
ward and  vifible  part  of  baptifm,  the  fcriptures  being  judge  ; 
this  literal  and  plain  meaning  of  the  command  being  judge  ;  the 
pradlice  of  the  apoftles  being  j  adge  ;  the  pradice  of  the  church 
for  more  than  a  thoufand  years  being  judge  ;  and  even  if  we 
appeal  to  thofe  who  refufe  to  pra^ife  thus,  they  add  their  tef- 
timony,  that  it  is  what  was  commanded.  They  pretend  not  to 
fay  that  any  new  command  hath  been  given,  or  that  the  old 
one  hath  ever  been  changed.  What  Ihall  we  fay  to  thefe 
things !  !  ! 

I  conclude  by  fubmitting  a  queftion,  and  a  few  inferences, 
for  your  confideration. 

The  queftion  is.  If  immerfion  be  from  heaven,  and  fprinkling 
from  men,  by  whr;t  authority    do  we  continue   the  pradice  f 

The  inferences  are — 

1.  We,  who  call  ourfelves  Pedobaptifts,  are  as  ahoufe  divi- 
ded againft  itfslf.  To  fay  the  leaft,  we  appear  thus.  Our  cham- 
pions will  look  us  in  the  face,  and  a/Tare  us,  that  the  Baptilts 
have  plain  fcripture  for  their  mode,  and  yet  we  have  a  right  to 
choofe  on  the  fcore  of  convenience,  Sec.  what  mode  is  pleafmg 
to  us.  Thus  fay  Calvin,  Hoadly,  Owen,  and  others  :  whilft 
in  their  pradice  they  have  been,  in  this  inftance,  like  the  fervant 
who  knew,  but  did  not  his  lord*s  will.  Thefe  good  men  have 
confefled  rather  too  much  for  the  credit  of  their  pra(Jlice,  and 
our  comfort  while  copying  it.  Many,  however,  have  rifen  up, 
in  defence  of  our  fathers'  practice  and  ours.  They  invent 
many  ingenious  hypothefes  to  prove  it  fiom  heaven,  bu;  not 
©ne  affords  a  folid  conclufion  which  fiiows  it  to  be  fo. 

2.  According  to  the  light  which  for  the  piefent  appears, 
we  cannot  but  conclude  that  our  definitions  of  baptifm  and  to 
baptize  are  fciiptural,  accurate  and  juft.  If  we  will  do  the 
wU  of  God,  we  muft  pradtife  what  he  commands. 

•  Vol,  a  p.  30.  X  Ed. 


Serm.  III.]  cf  Bapiifnu  Si 

3.  It  appears  that  it  is  not  left  with  us  to  choofe  what  mode 
we  will  pra(flire  in  adminiftering  or  in  receiving  the  ordinance  of 
baptilm  ;  for  we  find  but  one  mode  to  il :  and  we  mult  pradife 
this,  or  none.  We  may  fprinkie  a  perfon  in  tlie  name  of  the 
Father,  &c.  and  we  may  wafli  the  face,  or  any  part  of  a  perfon, 
in  the  fame  facied  name  ;  but  it  is  not  poffible  to  baptize  a 
perfon  in  this  way  ;  for  fprinkling,  vor  any  fmall  partial  wafhing 
never  was,  is  not  now,  nor  ever  will  be,  what  the  fcriptures 
mean  by  Chriftian  baptifm. 

4.  That  a  peribn  muft  be  greatly  unacquainted  with  the 
plain,  literal,  fciipture  account  of  baptifm,  or  extremely  preju- 
diced, not  to  fay  perverfe,  to  affirm  that  the  Bible  fays  nothing 
about  immerfion,  or  burying  in  water  for  baptizing.  For  it 
fpeaks  of  this  mode,  and  of  no  other,  in  the  application  of  water 
as  a  gofpel  ordinance. 

The  Baptifts  have  for  their  mode  the  broad  hafis  oi  fcriptures 
antiquity,  and  the  uninterrupted,  and  fomewhat  univerfal  prac- 
tice of  the  church. 

5.  It  appears  that  for  well-in form.ed  Pedobaptiils  to  oppofe 
the  Baptifts,  as  to  thsir  mode  of  baptizing,  is  very  great  wicked- 
nefs.  For  the  Baptifts  have  the  advantage  of  plain  and  exprefs 
fcripture  on  their  fide,  and  the  learned,  critical  and  candid 
Pedobaptifts  know  it. 

Ignorance  is  the  beft  and  only  excufe  which  we  can  make  for 
ourfelves  for  any  oppofition  which  we  have  made  againft  the 
ancient  and  primitive  mode  which  the  Baptifts  have  pradifed  in 
the  adminiftration  of  the  ordinance.  Our  contention  in  this 
matter  hath  not  been  againft  the  Baptifts  merely,  but  it  hath  been 
againft  their  Lord  and  ours. 

Dr.  Lathrop  appears  genercufly  to  grant  the  truth,  that 
immerfion  is  fcripture  baptiim,  and  only  contends  that  fprink- 
ling  be  alfo  allowed  ;  which  every  candid  mind  would  readily 
do,  were  there  one  text  of  fcripture  to  fupport  it, 

6.  No  true  Chriftian,  if  he  knew  what  he  did,  would  ever 
make  light  of  immerfion,  which  the  Lord  commands,  and  the 
Baptifts  pradtife,  as  the  mode  of  baptizing,  or,  more  ftrii^ly,  as 
baptifm  itfelf* 


The  Mode  and  Subje6ls         [Serm.  IV. 


SERMON   IV. 


MATTHEW  xxvili.   19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoji  ;  teach' 
ing  them  to  ohferve  all  things  ivhatfoever  I  have  commanded 
you  :  And,  lo,  I  am  nvith  you  altvay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.     Amen, 

WHILST  difcourfmg  to  you  upon  tliefe  words,  I  have, 
as  I  fuppofe,  proved  to  you  what  is  the  outward  and 
vlfibie  part  of  baptifm.  You  have,  to  appearance,  given  a 
ferious  and  folemn  attention,  and,  I  hope,  a  candid  one,  to  what 
hath  been  faid. 

All  which  I  afk  of  you  In  this  matter  is,  thac  you  in  the  fpirit 
of  meeknefs  hear  the  whole,  and  then  judge  and  praclife  in  fuch 
a  manner  as  you  cannot  refufe  to  do,  without  doing  violence  to 
your  reafon,  and  without  difobedience  to  the  command  of  Heaven. 

Some  of  you  may  be  afraid  of  difcord  ;  but  whence,  I  pray 
you,will  difcord  arife  among  brethren  ?  Will  a  candid,  prayerful 
and  felf- denying  attention  to  truth  caufe  this  feared  difcord  ? 
Hadi  truth  a  tendency  to  produce  difcord  among  the  faithful 
followers  of  the  Lamb  of  God  ?  I  knov/  that  once,  when  Chrifl 
preached  the  doctrines  of  the  crofs,  multitudes  of  profefling 
difciples  went  back,  and  followed  no  more  with  him.  1  hope 
it  will  not  be  dius  with  any  of  you.  But,  my  brethren,  how- 
ever it  may  be  with  any  of  you,  one  thing  is  clear — I  ought,  1 
muft  declare  to  you,  fo  fall  as  I  profitably  can,  all  thofe  truths 
of  God  which  appear  neceffary  to  build  you  up  in  found  faith 
and  holy  pra(5tice. 

As  I  have  faid  before,  fo  fay  I  unto  you  again,  that  all  which 
I^afk  of  you  is,  to  give  truth  a  candid  hearing,  and  yield  your 
affeiit,  when  fads  are  plainly  proved 

Noihing  fhould,  by  me,  be  thought  too  much  to  be  done,  to 
clear  away  irom  your  minds  the  da'knefs  of  prejudice,  together 
with  any  error  eou*  belief  and  pra^ice  which  you  may  have  im- 
bibed, in  part,  by  my  me:ins.  I  (hall,  therefore,  in  thi!^  difcourfe, 
after  having  attended  to  the  purport,  end  or  defign  of  baptifm, 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Bapiifnu  *9S 

anfwer  fome  obje<fl;ons,  which  may  for  the  prefent  obftru(*l  the 
force  oi  truth. 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  particular  bufinefs  of  this  difcourfe, 
jrou  will,  if  you  pleafe,  attend  for  a  minute  to  a  few  queftions, 
and  their  anfwers. 

1 .  Is  it  not  a  plain  cafe,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  deliver  to  you 
the  whole  counfel  of  God,  according  to  the  beft  light  it  may 
pleafe  him  to  aiford  me  ? 

2.  Is  it  not  equally  plain,  that  your  duty  is  to  yield,  not  to 
me,  but  to  the  truths  which  I  deliver,  an  obedient  ear  ? 

3.  Should  you,  from  an  uncandid  and  prejudiced  mind, 
refufe  to  be  converted  by  the  truth,  will  the  fault  be  mine  ? 

4.  Should  I  exhibit  full  evidence,  as  to  the  fubjefl  on  hand, 
and  exhibit  that  evidence  clearly  too,  or  fliould  it  be  that  I  have 
done  this,  and  yet  great  difficulties  fhould  arife,  will  you  be 
juftified  (hould  you  lay  the  blame  to  me  ? 

5.  Should  I  teach  you  the  truth,  and  produce  all  the  evi- 
dence which  you  can  afk  for,  and  you  fhould,  ail,  like  faithful 
Chriftians,  believe  it,  where  or  whence  will  arife  any  difficulty 
among  us  I  Should  any  of  you  refufe  to  believe,  will  you  charge 
your  difficulties  to  my  account  ? 

6.  Are  not  all  of  you  determined  that  you  will  hear  can- 
didly, and  believe  upon  evidence  ? 

You  will  pleafe  to  give  a  Chriftian  and  judicious  anfwer  to 
each  of  thtfe  queftions,  and  let  your  pradice  be  conformed 
with  the  gofpel  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift. 

Having  laid  before  you  the  principal  part  of  the  fadls  and 
evidence,  which  I  intended,  as  to  the  vifible  and  outward  part 
of  baptifm,  now — 

Lajlly,  The  purport,  end  and  defign  of  the  Baptifmal  Infti- 
lution  may  call  for  fome  attention. 

The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  this  Chriftian  ordinance,  or 
inftitution,  appears  to  be — 

I.  For  a  dividing  hne  between  the  kingdom  of  cur  Lord, 
and  the  kingdoms  of  this  world. 

John  was  Chrift's  forerunner  :  he  was  fent  before  his  face  to 
turn  t)ie  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  difo- 
bedient  to  the  wifdom  of  the  juft  :  to  make  ready  a  people  pre- 
pared for  the  Lord  ;*  and  that  Chrift  fhould  be  made  mani- 
feft  CO  Ifrael,  therefore,  fays  John,  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
watcr.f     John's  million  comprehended  a  double  purpofcj  to 

*  Luke  I  17.  f  John  i  31. 


34  The  Mode  and  SuhjeBs         [Serm.  IV. 

make  ready  a  people,  prepared  for  the  Lord,  and  to  rcanifeft 
Him  unto  lirael.  The  people  which  he  inftruinentally  made 
ready,  and  prepared  to  receive  the  Lord,  he  baptized  ;  and  it 
appears  from  his  rejeding  many  of  the  Pharifees  and  Sadducees, 
that  he  intentionally  baptized  none  other.*  The  whole  dif- 
courfe  which  he  had  with  them,  Matt.  iii.  7  to  12,  is  good  evi- 
dence that  he  admitted  none  to  baptifm  but  fuch  as  brought 
forth  vifible  fruits  of  repentance.  Such  perfons  he  adir>itted 
among  that  people  which  he  was  making  ready  for  the  Lord. 
This  people  were,  when  prepared,  to  compofe  that  kingdom, 
or  the  beginning  of  that  kingdom,  which  fh.ijl  never  be  de- 
ftroyed,  and  which  is  an  everlafting  kingdom,  which  (hall  ftand 
forever  ;  Daniel  ii.  44.  and  vii.  27.  This  kingdom  Chrift  calls 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  fays,  it  is  not  of  this  world. 

It  appears  to  be  this  kingdom,  which  was  now  at  hand,  al- 
moft  ready  to  be  l#t  up,  of  which  Chriit  fpeaks  to  Nicodemus, 
when  he  fays,  John  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
of  die  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  mio  the  kingdom  of  God. 

All  this  does,  for  fubftance,  meet  the  fentiment  of  Bsptifts 
and  Pedobaptifts  on  this  fubje<fl.  Both  fuppofe,  that  none  can 
belong  to  tJiis  kingdom  widiout  being  born  of  water,  or  bapti- 
zed. Both  fuppofe  that  men  may  profefledly,  or  vifibly,  belong 
to  tliis  kingdom,  without  being  born  of  the  Spirit :  but,  perhaps, 
neither  the  Baptifts,  nor  Pedobaptifts,  would  fay,  that  any  do, 
ftridly  fpeaking,  belong  to  this  kingdom,  except  they  have 
been  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit.  Our  Lord  faith,  Verily, 
verily,  excepi  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Ifa  man  cannot 
enter  into  this  kingdom  but  in  this  way,  he  cannot  U^ong  to 
it  in  any  other. 

B  >th  fides  grant,  that  baptifm,  or  to  be  born  of  water, ;is  the 
only  way  of  admittance  into  this  kingdom.  They  aie  not  fo 
well  agreed  as  to  what  it  is  to  be  boru  of  water,  whether  it  be  to 
be  fprirkled,  wafhed,  or  immerfed.  Concerning  this  matter 
you  n^uft  judge  ^or  y-^urfelves. 

This  belr  g  a  givwi  point,  rliat  the  defign  of  baptifm  is,  that  it 
(hoiild  be  for  a  diN  '.tirg  line  between  that  kingdom,  which  the 
God  cf  heaven  ^vas  to  let  up  in  r/ie  latter  days,  and  this  world, 
1  wf  uk  fuggtft  for  >'  ur  cf.i;liaeration — Which  drr.ws  the  line 
of  icparatic»n  11. '?;  clearly  bn%veen  this  kingdom  and  all  ether 
kingdoms  on  earth  ;  to  ent:    it  by  being  fprinkled  j  or  by  be- 

*  Matt.  iii.  7. 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Bapilfnu  3S 

ing  vifibly  and  adually  burled  in  water,  and  riling  as  it  were 
from  the  dead,  to  join  this  kingdom  ? 

I  will  alfo  fugged  one  thing  more  for  your  confideration  : 
Which  hath  the  moft  dire<5l  and  natural  tendency  to  caufe 
Chrift's  kingdom  to  appeal  to  be,  as  it  really  is,  not  of  this  world? 
To  have  almoft  ail  admitted  into  it,  in  infancy,  and  fo  in  unbe- 
lief, and  all  by  fprinkling,  or  by  a  little  water  put  upon  the  f^ce, 
and  the  greater  part  of  them  living  in  open  wickednefs,  or 
manifeft  unbelief,  and  unnoticed  by  the  church  to  which  they 
are  fuppofed  to  belong  ;  or,  to  have  none  admitted  but  profefled 
believers,  and  thefe  admitted  in  a  way  which  fignificanily  fays, 
that  they  turn  their  backs  upon  the  world  ;  yea,  that  they  are 
dead  to  the  world,  and  are  rifen  with  Chrift  ?  I  only  fuggeft 
this  for  your  confideration.  I  hope  to  attend  to  it  in  its  place, 
but  not  to-day. 

2.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  baptifm  appears  to  be 
for  a  manifeftation,  that  the  fubjedsofithave  forfaken  all,  yes, 
their  own  lives,  for  Chrift's  fake  and  the  gofpel. 

How  can  this  be  more  vifibly  manifefted,  than  by  being 
buried  with  him  in  baptifm  ?  How  can  a  man  more  vifibly  for- 
fake  all,  than  he  does  when  buried  ?  How  can  any  one  more 
manifeftly  forfake  his  own  life  for  another,  than  by  voluntarily 
fubmitting  himfelf  into  the  hands  of  another  to  be  buried 
alive  ? 

Is  not  this  agreeable  to  what  Chrift  faith,  Whofoever  he  be 
of  you  that  forfaketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my 
difciple  ? 

3.  It  appears  to  be  for  a  reprefentation  of  our  being  wafhed 
from  our  fms  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb. 

John,  the  revelator,  faith,  fpeaking  of  Jefus  Chrift,  the  faithful 
wiinefs,  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  wafhed  us  from  our  (ins 
in  his  own  blood."  This  is  a  figurative  expreffion,  fhowing 
at  once  the  procuring  caufe,  the  blood  of  Chrift,  and  the  eracious 
effeifl,  cur  fouls  purged  from  dead  work?  to  ferve  the  living 
God.  Can  any  natural  fign  reprefent  this  more  fully,  than 
does  baptifm,  in  which  our  bodies  are  wafhed  with  pure  water  ? 

4.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  this  Chriftian  ordinance 
appears  to  be  for  the  pr<jmotion  of  piety  in  individuals,  and 
purity  in  the  church. 

What  can  have  a  ftronger  tendency  to  move  the  heart  of  a 
Chriftian  to  piety  and  weanedneG  from  the  worH,  than  has  the 
inftitution  of  baptifm  ?  Seeing  ar  -very  remerabrarce  of  it  he  is 
put  in  mind,  how  Chrift  dkd/orjinf  and  how  every  one  who 


36  The  Mode  and  Subjects       [Serm.  IV. 

hath  believed  and  beeen  baptized,  has  by  the  ordinance  fignally 
died  tofiUi  been  buried  from  the  world,  and  raifed  again  to  new- 
nefs  of  life.  Hath  not  this  ordinance  alfo  an  equally  ftroiig 
tendency  to  preferve  the  purity  of  the  church,  ftiould  it  be  ad- 
ininiftered  as  we  have  proved  it  ought  to  be,  by  immerfion  only  ? 
And  fhould  another  thing  be  found  to  be  true,  that  vifible  be- 
lievers only  fhould  be  admitted  to  it,  what  a  world  of  unbeliev- 
ers would  this  fliut  out  of  the  church  !  How  differently  v^^ould 
the  profefled  church  of  Jefus  Chrid  appear  from  what  it  now 
does ! 

If  my  information  be  correal,  every  natural-bom  fubjeft  of 
the  crown  of  England  is,  according  to  the  laws  of  their  na- 
tional church,  to  be  baptized,  and  immediately  confidered  as  a 
member  of  the  church.  This  is,  indeed,  confident,  if  all  the  pa- 
rents have,  in  any  paft  period,  been  profelyted  to  the  Chriftian 
religion,  and  if  baptifm  have  come  into  the  place  of  circumci- 
fion,  and  to  be  adminiftered  to  children  and  infants,  as  that 
was. 

Not  only  £o,  but  probably  nine-tenths  of  the  inhabitants  of 
New- England,  if  not  of  our  nation,  belong  to  the  church,  ac- 
cording to  the  profcifTed  belief  of  the  Pedobaptifts.  Upon  the 
fame  principle  I  preiume  that  more  than  three-fourths  of  all  the 
adults  in  this  and  the  neighbouring  towns  belong  to  the  church, 
and  have,  if  the  principle  be  according  to  the  gofpel,  a  right 
to  require  admittance  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  baptifm  for 
their  children.  Then,  upon  the  fame  principle,  would  their 
children  be  members  of  the  church,  and  entitled  to  all  the  priv- 
ileges of  God's  houfe,  as  they  come  to  years,  and  nothing  fhort 
of  grofs  immorality  could  juftify  their  exclufion.  Does  this 
look  as  though  Chrift's  kingdom  were  not  of  this  world  ? 

5.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  baptifm  appears  to  be 
Well  defcribed  by  Dr.  Goodwin,  in  the  following  words  :  *<  The 
eminent  thing  fignified  and  reprefented  in  baptifm  is  not  fmgly 
the  blood  of  Chrift,  as  it  ivafies  us  from  our  fms,  but  there  is 
a  further  reprefentation  therein  of  Chrift's  death,  burial  and 
refurreftion,  in  the  baptized  :  and  this  is  not  in  a  bare  con- 
formity to  Chrift,  but  is  a  reprefentation  of  a  communion  with 
Chrift  in  his  death  and  refun  edlion  ;  therefore  it  is  faid.  We 
are  buried  with  him  in  baptifm,  and  wherein  we  are  rifen  with 
him,  &c.  And  moreover,  here  it  is  that  the  anfwer  of  a  good 
confcience,  which  is  made  the  inward  effe<n:  of  this  ordinance, 
1  Peter  lii  21,  is  there  alfo  atcribnted  to  Chrift's  refurretflion,  as 
the  thing  fignified  and  reprefented  in  baptifm  ;  and  as  the  caufe 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Baptifm,  3^ 

of  that  anfwer  of  a  good  confclence,  even  baptiim  doth  now 
fave  us,  as  it  is  a  figure  of  falvatioii  by  Chrift." 

6.  The  purport,  end  or  defign  of  the  ordinance  appears  to 
be.  to  poini  out,  or  fliidow  forth,  the  forgivenefs  or  remilTion  of 
fin?,  and  the  being  cleanfed  from  them.  Hence  the  propriety 
of  fcripture  expreflions,  which  are  like  the  following  :  The 
baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiilion  of  fms,  Mark  i.  4. 
Arife  and  be  bapiiz'^d,  and  wafh  away  thy  fias,  Atts  xxii.  16. 
Here  it  is  w^orthy  of  the  critical  reader's  notice,  that  the  word 
translated  zvnjh  atvay^  is  apoloufalj  which  fignines  to  waih  clean, 
or  to  wafh  out  a  (lain,  ai  well  as  to  waih  away.  It  is  alfo 
worthy  to  be  obferved,  that  the  word  louo,  whence  this  is  derived, 
is  the  only  wnrd  or  theme,  fave  hapu^d^  v.'hich,  in  the  New-Tef- 
tament,  fignifies  to  wafli  the  body.  This  being  well  confidered, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  but  baptifm  is  a  moft  fignificant  repre- 
fentauion  of  the  remiffion  of  fm,  or  cleanfmg  from  it. 

Lajlly.  The  purport,  end  and  defjgn  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm  appears  co  be,  for  an  open  and  manifeil  declaration 
that  thofe  who  receive  it,  do  heartily,  and  of  a  ready  mind,  put 
on  Chrift,  enter  into  his  fervice,  receive  him  to  be  their  Prophet, 
Prieil  and  King,  and  covenant  to  be  for  him,  and  for  him 
only.  Accordingly  it  is  faid,  As  many  as  were  baptized  into 
Chriff,  have  put  on  Chrift  :  They  have  put  on  his  name,  his 
fcif  denying  profeffion,  his  fuiFerlng,  defpifed,  but  glorious  caufe. 

Is  the  purport,  end  and  defign  of  bapiifm  as  hatli  been  now 
ftated  ?  then  the  mode  is  immerfion  ;  and  thofe  who  change  the ' 
ordinance  from  dipping  to  fprinkling,  and  apply  it  to  unbelievers, 
pervert  the  ordinance,  lofe  its  import,  and  make  it  quite  another 
thing.     This  we  have,  for  years,  ignorantly  done. 

We  v.m11  now  attend  to  the  arguments,  which  the  late  Rev. 
John  Cieaveland  hath  left  us  in  fupport  o{ f pr inkling,  as  being 
authentic  baptifm.  This  Mr.  Cleaveland  was,  and  I  believe 
juRIy  too,  efleemed  as  one  of  the  moft  pious  and  faithful  fer- 
vants  of  Chrift.  Whilft  I  was  favoured  with  a  perfonal  ac- 
quaintance with  him,  he  ftood  very  high  in  my  eilimaiion,  for 
his  unafte<fted  piety,  and  fervent  fimplicity,  as  a  preacher  of 
the  everlafting  gofpel.  I  dill  retain  the  fame  opinion  of  the 
good  man.  But  great  and  good  men  are  not  always  wife. 
In  any  inflance  where  their  wifdom  hath  failed  them,  we  fnould 
be  careful  how  we  follow.  T!ie  Bereans  would  not  take  Paul 
for  a  guide,  without  firft  bringing  him  to  the  ftandard  of  divine 
truth.  The  Bereans  were  juilified.  Should  we  treat  Mr.  C. 
in  the  fame  way,  he  could  not,  and  I  am  incJinsd  to  think,  he 
D 


58  The  Mode  and  ^Subjecls        [Serm.  IV. 

would  not,  thou.e^h  he  were  living,  condemn  us.  I  might  let 
his  v;orks  and  arguments  in  fupporc  of  fprinkling,  fleep,  were 
it  not,  that  fome  of  you,  my  people,  and  perhaps  others,  may 
by  ihem,  in  one  particular,  be  kept  from  beholding  Chrift,  as  in 
an  open  glaf^. 

The  good  man's  objeft  was,  to  prove  that  baptifm  by  fprink- 
ling is  authentic,  or  is  fcriptural ;  or  that  fprinkling  is  baptifm. 
I  ivlil  now  lay  before  you  his  fuppofed  ftrong  arguments  by 
which  hefupports  the  validity  of  fprinkling  for  baptizing.  Af- 
ter dating  the  principles  of  the  Baptifls,  as  to  the  ordinance 
now  confidering,  his 

I  ft.  Argument  is,  "Their  learned  men  know  that  the  word 
hapt'izd  in  Luke  xi.  38,  and  hapt'tfmous  in  Mark  vii.  2 — 5,  are  ufed 
to  fignify  the  fame  as  niptd  is,  i.  e.  proper  waftiing,  or  making 
clean  by  the  application  of  water,  in  cafes  that  do  not  neceffarily 
require  dipping  as  the  mode  of  wafhing/*  The  anfwer  to  this 
IS :  That  neither  the  learned  men  among  the  Baptifts,  nor  the 
learned  among  any  other  clafs  of  men,  know  any  fuch  thing. 
Befides,  baptifihe,  in  Luke^  and  hapttfmous^  in  Marky  have  refer- 
ence to,  and  mean,  a  ceremonial,  a  religious,  or  rather,  as  may 
be  more  properly  called  in  thefe  inftances,  a  fuperftitious  wafh- 
ing.  What  is  meant  by  a  ceremonial  wafhing,  you  may  fee  by 
looking  into  the  ceremonial  law  :  Lemit.  xi.  52,  and  in  NumLxix. 
19,  where  you  will  find  that  this  ceremonial  wafhing  was,  to 
put  into  water,  or  to  bathe  one's  flefti  in  water.  You  hence 
fee  that  thefe  two  pafTages,  with  which  Mr.  Cleaveland  lays  the 
foundation  of  hisfupport  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  utterly  fail 
him,  and  come  in  as  auxiliaries  to  confirm  immerfion  as  the  only 
fcripture  baptifm.  I  will  not  fay  that  nipto  is  never  ufed  to  fig- 
nify ceremonial  wafhing,  and  fo  intend  the  walhing  or  putting 
the  hands  into  water,  [pvgvie)  with  abundance  of  exactnefs,  as 
Dr.  Dod<iridge  expounds  it,  or  up  to  the  elbows,  as  L'Enfant 
renders  it.  But  one  thing  is  evident  to  all  who  will  examine 
the  texts,  and  compare  them  with  the  ceremonial  wafhings  of 
the  ceremonial  law,  in  conformity  with  which  the  Jewifli  doctors 
meant  to  have  their  traditional  ceremonies,  that  laptlzd  and 
haptifmcs  are  not  ufed  in  the  fenfe  in  v/hich  nip^d  generally  is.  In 
every  point  of  view,  Mr.  Cleaveland's  texts  utterly  fail  him,  and 
go  to  deftroy  the  cuftomor  tradition  he  brought  them  to  fupport. 
Befides,  I  do  not  find  that  laptizo  is  ufed,  in  any  place,  for 
walliing  the  hands,  or  for  waftiing  or  dipping  a  part  of  the 
body,  or  any  other  thing.     Mr.  Cleaveland's 

«d.  Argument  is  bnilt  upon  Hehreivt  i«.    10.  where  the 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Eaptifm:  S9 

Apoftle  fpeaks  of  (diaphoro'is  lapt'ifmois)  divers  wa-fhings.  Here, 
where  the  Apoftle  is  fpeaknig  of  divers  ceremonial  wafhings,  or 
bathings,  Mr.  Cleaveland,  without  the  leaft  poffible  evidence, 
concludes  the  Apoftle  means  divers  fprinklings. 

The  fame  anfwer  which  was  given  to  the  firft  argument  be- 
longs to  tliis,  as  Mr.  Cleaveland  has  produced  no  evidence,  that 
(haptifmois)  wafhings,  or  bathings,  means  fprlnklings,  fave  that 
in  the  1 3th  and  2 1  ft  verfes.  The  Apoftle  makes  ufe  of  the  word 
fprinkle,  when  fpeaking  of  the  application  cf  blood,  and  fpeak- 
ing  of  the  unclean  ;  he  fays,  they  are  rantl-z.eJy  and  adds,  al- 
moft  ail  things  are  by  the  law  purged,  calherixed^  not  haptlzeJt 
with  blood.  It  is  fiOt  a  little  furprifing  that  a  man  of  Mr.  Cleave- 
land's  good  fenfe  Ihould  fay,  and  that  Dr.  Lathrcp,  and  other 
men  of  erudition,  (hould  follow  him,  in  faying,  thefe  different 
fprinklings,  in  the  13th  and  z  ift  verfes,  refer  to  hapttfmxjis^  when, 
had  they  looked  three  words  farther,  they  would  have  found 
them  to  be,  kai  dikaiomafi  farhcs,  the  liberal  Englifti  of  which 
is,  **  The  ordinances  of  God  concerning  the  ceremonial  rites  of 
bloody  facrifices  !"  Had  they  looked  into  their  Greek  tefta- 
ments,  they  might,  with  eafe,  have  feen  that  their  argument 
would  not  bear  examination.  Surely,  had  thefe  gentlemen  had 
the  right  of  the  queftlon,  they  never  would  have  compelled  the 
Apoftle  to  explain  by  the  fprinkling  of  blood,  what  he  meant  by- 
bathings  or  vvaftiings  with  water.  Perhaps  a  more  forced  expo- 
fition  of  fcripture  is  feldom  heard.  Befides,  the  Apuftle  told 
them,  by  placing  what  is  tranOat<:d,  carnal  ordinances,  between 
divers  wafhings  in  the  loth,  and  fprinklingi  in  the  13th  and 
2ift  verfes,  that  he  intended  no  fuch  thing  as  they  fuppofed. 
If  I  miftake  not,  Mr.  C.'s 

3d.  Argument  is  an  attempt  to  prove  that  bapio  and  lapti%o 
are  ufed  to  fignify  fomething  more  than  to  dip,  put  into  water^ 
6cc.  When  the  good  man  brought  forward  his  argument,  lie 
forgot — &c. — which  belongs  to  his  quotation  from  Dr.  Gale, 
and  which  includes  immeifion  and  overwhelming,  and  which 
comprifes  the  whole  which  Mr.  C.  has  proved  that  bapt'vzo  £\g' 
nifies.  But,  waving  his  forgetfulnefs,  we  will  attend  to  what 
lie  fays.  All  which  he  appears  to  do  here  is,  to  (liow  that 
bapto't)r  baptizo  are  ufed  to  wafh,  dip  and  wet  witii  fprink- 
ling the  dew  from  heaven,  and  to  overwhetm.  That  is,  bapto 
fignifies  to  dip,  put  into  water,  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  &c. 
and  baptixo  Signifies  to  dip,  put  into  water  and  overwhelm. 
What  is  the  confequence  ?  According  to  Mr.  C  it  is  this :  Be- 
cftufe  bapto  is  fometimes  ufed  to  fignify  one's  being  wet  with  the 


40  The  Mode  and  Subjetls        [Serm .  IV. 

diftiiilng  dew  of  heaven,  &:c.  therefore  bapi'i%o  Tignifies  the  lame 
»hing  :  Becaufe  hapio  fignifies  in  one  place  to  wafh  without 
di])ping,  therefore  bapti%d  fignifics  to  wafh  without  dipping  ; 
and  becauie  hapto  is  lomecimes  ufed  to  fignify  tc  colour,  or  ftain, 
by  afpeifion,  or  the  like,  therefore  baptlx.o  is  ufed  in  the  fame 
fenfe  ;  therefore  fprinkling  is  authentic  baptifm.  What  evidence, 
I  pray  you,  my  hearers,  is  there  in  ail  this  ?  Yes,  what  fhow  or 
appearance  of  evidence  is  there  in  all  this  ?  Would  ten  tho^jTaiid 
fuch  arguments  afford  you  the  leaft  convidion,  or  gain  your 
ailen!:,  v/here  you  had  a  cent  to  Icfe  ? 

JLvery  perfim  of  ienfe,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  Greek, 
would,  generally  fpeaking,  allow  Mr.  C.'s  premifes,  iha.t  bapi 5 j 
in  different  places,  flgnifies  the  application  of  water  in  different 
ways  ;  and  that  lapti-zo  fometimes  fignifies  overwhelming.  But 
no  perfon,  who  underftands  the  matter,  will  allow  his  conclu* 
ficn,  for  it  hatii  no  connexion  with  tli€  premifes. 

Hi»  argumer.t,  in  plain  Engiilh,  is  tiiis  :  The  verfj  to  wet, 
fometiixies  fignifies  to  fprinkle,  as  in  a  heavy  dew  we  fay  it 
fprinkles,  or  wets  ;  the  verb  to  overwhelm.,  fometimes  fignifies 
10  cover  all  over  with  water,  as  is  the  beach,  by  the  ilowir:g  of 
the  tide.  Of  confequence,  to  overwhelm  is  to  fprinkle  ;  there- 
fore to  fprinkle  is  authentic  overwhelming,  or  baptifm.  The 
fallacy  of  this  argument  is  eafily  deteifted,  and  with  the  fame 
cafe  may  any  one,  who  knows  the  different  fignifi cations  of  baptd 
and  baptizoj  uncover  the  fallacy  and  complete  inconcluftvenefs 
cf  Mr.  C.*s  argument. 

The  plain  truth  is,  he  hath  done  his  fide  a  diiTervlce ;  for  by 
fearching  he  hath  found,  and  implicitly  acknov^'ledges,  though 
not  intentionally,  and  (1  fuppofej  without  knowing  it,  that  no 
inftafiCe  can  be  found  where  baptizo  iign\fit\h  the  application  of 
water  by  fprinkling,  or  any  other  way,  which  docs  not  imply 
overwriclming,  or  walhing,  that  isj  a  ceremoniai  walliicg, 
which  is  bathing,  or  putting  into  water.     But — 

4.  There  is  another  argument  upon  which  Mr.  Cleaveland 
chiefly  dwells,  and  upon  which  he  appears  greatly  to  reft  the 
defence  of  his  whole  caufe.  It  is  his  flrong  hold  againft  immer- 
fion,  and  for  fprinkling  ;  and  it  is  this  :  Baptifm  with  water,  or 
baptifm  as  a  Chriftian  ordinance,  is  to  fignify  Chnft's  baptii^ing 
with  the  Holy  Glioft.  I  have  no  where  found  tliat  he  hath 
proved  that  this  is  the  great  and  principal  thing  which  baptifm 
Hgnifies  ;  nor  do  I  by  any  means  obtain  convidion  that  the 
mode  of  baptizing  is  to  be  determined,  with  certainty,  from 
this  particular  thing,  even  fiiould  it  be  granted  that  one  impor- 


Serm.  IV.]  of  Baptifm.  41 

tant  defign  of  baptifm  is  to  fignify  Chrift*s  baptizing  with  the 
Holy  Ghoft.  But,  as  Mr.  C.  feems  to  depend  upon  the  ftrength 
of  this  argument  more  than  he  does  upon  the  ftrength  of  any- 
other,  we  will  grant  for  the  prefent,  tliat  baptifm  with  water 
was  appointed  particularly,  if  not  mainly,  to  fet  forth  the  mode 
in  which  Chrift  baptlzeth  with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Now  the  gieat  queftion  is,  In  what  manner  or  mode,  hj 
fprinkling  or  overwhelming,  did  Chrift  Jefus  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghoft  ?  Mr.  C.  in  his  ireatife,  replies  abundantly,  By 
fprinkling,  certainly.  We  will  put  this  fubjed  to  the  teft,  by 
inftancing  the  moft  remarkable  feafon  which  ever  was,  in  which 
Chrift,  in  a  moft  remarkable,  public  and  aftoniihing  degree  was 
baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  I  prefume  were  Mr.  C.  now 
alive,  he  cculd  not,  with  any  face  of  propriety,  obje<5t  againft 
taking  a  fample  for  the  whole,  the  moft  remarkable  inftance 
which  ever  hath  been,  and  perhaps  which  ever  will  be  exhib- 
ited of  Chrift's  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  1  am  wiUing 
to  fubmit  the  ftrong  argument  of  Mr.  C.  to  this  great  fample  of 
Chrift's  bapiizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Are  not  all  you,  my 
hearers,  willing  to  leave  the  weight  of  his  argument  to  fuch  a 
decifion  ?   I  am  perfuaded  you  all  fay,  Yes. 

We  will  then  bring  hb  argument  to  the  propofed  teft. 

The  inftance  which  we  will  take,  (fcrfurely  it  is  the  moft 
aftonifliing  one,)  is  that  which  Chrift  foretold,  as  related,  Ads 
^'  5'  "John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  lliall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  not  many  days  hence.^'  Theaccomplilh- 
rnent  of  this  predidion  and  promife  we  have  related  in  the  four 
firft  verfes  of  the  next  chapter.  It  is  thus  :  When,  the  day  of 
Pentecoft  was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one 
place.  And  fuddenly  there  was  a  found  from  heaven,  as  of  a 
ruOiing,  a  ighty  wind,  and  it  tilled  all  the  houfe  where  they 
were  fitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloveh  tongues*. 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  fat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were  all 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Here  was  truly  a  wonderful  inftance  of  Chrift*s  baptizing, 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Here,  i.  All  the  houfe  was  filled  witli  the  found,  wind  or 
Spirit  from  heaven.  2*  Cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and.it 
fat  upon  each  of  them.  3.  They  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghoft. 

We  here  fee   that  ihey  were  all  overwhelmed  ;  for  all  tlie 
houfe,  where  they  were  fitting,  was  filled  ;  and  not  only  were- 
they  all  overwhelmed,  but  t'*  v  were  alio  filled. 
D  2  - 


4:2  The  Mode  md  Subjeds       [Serm.  :IV. 

It  is  left  with  you  to  determine,  what  becomes  of  Mr.  C.'s 
argument,  upon  which  he  lays  fo  much  ftrefs,  and  of  which  he 
ipeaks  with  fo  much  confidence,  and  net  nnfrequently  with  an 
air  of  triumph.  Is  Liere  a  word  about  fprinkling  in  any  part 
of  it  ?  or  is  there  any  thing  which  looks  like  it  ?  Does  it  not 
look  confiderably  like  immerficn,  or  overwhehning  ?  At  leaft, 
does  it  not  favour  immerfion,  or  overwhelming,  as  much  as  it 
does  fprinkling  ?  If  fo,  then  it  proves  nothing  for  fprinkling* 
It  is  left  with  you  to  determine  which  fide  it  favours. 

It  is  poflible,  however,  that  fome  of  you  may  fuppofe,  thai: 
Mr.  C.  might  intend  ikat  baptifm,  if  it  may  be  fo  called,  which 
the  Holy  Ghoft  minifters,  when  it  creates  the  foul  anew.  To 
this  fappofition,  I  willjuft  obferve,  *'  The  wind  bio v/eth  (faith 
ChiiR)  where  it  litieth,  and  thou  heared  the  found  thereof,  but 
canft  not  tell  'whence  it  cometh  cr  ivhithsr  it  goeth  ;  fo  is  every 
one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.''  Would  it  not  be  extreme  folly 
to  fuppofe  that  water  baptifm  reprefents  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  when  none  can  know  whence  it  cometh,  or  whither  it 
goeth  ?  It  may  reprefent  the  eifed  of  the  Spirit's  operations  ; 
and  it  is  called,  Ji  being  born,  not  fprinkled,  of  the  Spirit. 

5.  In  reading  Mr.  C.'s  defence  of  fprinkling,  as  being  au- 
thentic baptifm,  I  noticed  but  one  more  diftind  argument,  and 
it  is  this  : 

**  Nipto,  hapti%o.  louo,  hrecho,  plund^  or  apopluno^  all  fignify  to 
wafh."  The  conclufion  which  he  draws  from  this  is,  in  fhort, 
the  frllowing  :  To  baptize  is  not  to  immerfe,  but  to  fprinkle* 
I  fee  no  connexion  between  his  premifs  and  conclufion.  Befides, 
Mr.  C.  tells  us,  page  80,  that  the  Jews,  by  adhering  to  the  tra- 
dition of  the  elders,  oblerved  the  wafliing  of  hands,  and  divers 
other  thingSr  as  a  religious  ceremony.  Now,  if  all  the  words 
which  Mr.  C.  mentions,  fignify  to  wafh,  and  yet  for  «•  of  them 
figrify  common  wafhing,  and  another,  and  that  bapti%o,  fi;:nifies 
cere  nonial  wafhing,  and  that  be  to  put  into  water,  as  is  the 
cafe,  what  does  his  argument  prove  r  It  proves  juft  nothing  to 
his  point.  Had  he  proved,  what  he  hath  not  even  attempted, 
that  they  all  fignify  the  fame  kind  of  wafhing,  and  that  the 
wafhing  fignified  was  not  immerfion,  but  fprinkling  only,  then 
his  conclufion  would  have  followed,  that  fprinkling  is  bap- 
tifm. 

If  the  above  arguments  will  not  fupport  Mr.  Cleaveland's 
Aeory,  it  muft  all  come  dov.'n ;  for  they  are  the  fuhftance,  if 
Botall  the  arguments,  which  he  bath  adduced,  and  I  prefume 
Jbetter  cannot  be  found. 


&rm.  IV.]  of  Baptifnu  43 

I  thought  to  have  taken  Dr.  Lathiop's  arguments  upon  the 
fame  fubjed,  into  confideratlon  ;  but  upon  re-examining  them 
I  find  there  is  no  material  difllrcilarity  between  his  and  Mr. 
C.'s  ;  they  therefore  both  ftand  or  fall  together.  A  worcPor  two 
may  be  here  added. 

Dr.  Lathrcp  aiuires  us  that  Cyprian,  who  wrote  within  about 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  tlie  apoftles,  fpeaking  of  fprink- 
ling,  fays,  "In  tlie  facrament  of  filvation  (that  is,  baptifm) 
when  neccjfity  compels^  the  fhorteft  ways  of  tranfading  divine 
matters  d.o,  by  God's  grace,  confer  the  whole  benefit."  The 
Doif^or  adds,  '*The  zxicitnls  praci if ed  immsr/ton.^^* 

By  this  quotation  of  the  Doctor's  from  Cyprian,  and  confeflion 
of  his  own,  being  put  together,  it  appears  at  once  that  all  his 
preceding  arguments  are  erroneous ;  for  Cyprian  does  not 
intimate  that  fprinkling  was  from  heaven,  but  fays  it  wac  from 
neceflity.  Befides,  his  calling  baptifm  the  facrament  of  falva- 
tion,  fhows  us  the  error,  whence  the  neceffity  of  fprinkling  came, 
namely,  a  belief  that  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  v/as  neceifary  to 
falvation.  This  being  the  cafe,  and  it  alfo  being  true,  as  the 
Do<ftor  acknowedges,  that  the  ancients  praclifed  immerfion, 
fave  when  neceffity  compelled,  as  they  erroneoufly  fuppofed, 
the  confequence  is  fairly  this,  that  immerfion  is  from  heaven, 
the  ancients  being  judges ;  and  that  fprinkling  is  from  men,  from 
neceflity,  or  rather  from  error. 

I  thought  to  have  added  no  more  upon  the  Do(5Vor's  mode  of 
ChriRian  baptifm.  However,  one  argument  ought  to  be  taken 
out  of  his  hands,  left  it  mifguide  fome  of  his  readers.  He  tells 
us,  that  hapiizo,  in  Mark  vii.  and  Luke  ji.  is  ufed  to  fignify 
the  application  of  water  to  the  hands.  The  only  anAver  needed 
is,  It  is  not  thus  faid,  in  Mark,  or  Luke,  or  in  any  other  part  of 
the  Bible.  When  the  Doctor  (hall  re-examine  the  paifages^ 
he  will  probably  fee  the  miftake. 

Will  gentlemen,  and  Chriftians  too,  forever  contend  againft 
immerfion,  the  inftitution  of  heaven,  and  £or fpr'mklingy  which  halh 
nothnig  but  ermr  smd  convenience  for  its  fupport  I. 

*  Pages  24,  3J. 


44  The  Mode  and  Subjeds        [Serm.  V. 


SERMON    V. 

MATTHEW  xxvili.  19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nailonsy  laptt%tng  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofl ;  teaching 
them  to  ohferve  all  things  ivhatfoever  I  have  commanded  you  : 
And,  loy  I  am  fwith  you  alivay^  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
nvorld,      Amen, 

I  HAVE  confidence  in  you,  brethren,  thar  ye  will  keep  the 
ordinances,  as  I  fhall  deliver  them  to  you,  and  prove  them 
to  be  from  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

One  thing  I  would  ftill  know  of  you,  my  brethren,  whether 
you,  like  the  more  noble  Bereans,  will  receive  the  word  with 
readinefs,  fearching  the  fcriptures  daily,  that  ycu  may  know  the 
truth  of  what  you  hear. 

You  will  bear  in  mind,  that  whofoever  loveth  father  or 
mother,  houfe  or  lands,  wife  or  children,  more  than  Chrift,  is 
not  worthy  of  him.  If,  through  afFed:ion  for  any  of  thefe,  you 
fhould  rcfufe  to  obey  Chrift,  it  will  be  too  evident  that  you  love 
them  more  than  you  do  him,  and  fo  are  not  worthy  of  him. 

Should  you  love  any  erroneous  belief  and  pra<5lice  more  than- 
you  do  the  truths  of  Chrift,  you  will,  fo  far  as  you  manifeft  it, 
prove  that  you  are  not  worthy  of  him. 

Should  you  defpife  me  for  delivering  and  vindicating  the 
truths  of  Chrift  to  you,  you  will  at  the  fame  time  defpife  him. 
You  will  therefore  give  good  heed  to  what  you  fay,  and  to  wliat 
you  do  in  this  matter  ;  for  if  it  be  of  God,  it  wil:  ftand,  and- 
none  can  overthrow  it.  It  is  hoped  none  of  you  will  be  found 
fighting  againft  God. 

This  difcourfe  may  contain  a  review  of  what  we  have  pafTed 
over,  together  with  fome  application.  In  my  firft  difcourfe  to 
you  on  the  fubje<5t,  which  we  have  ftill  before  us,  the  following 
are  tlie  principal  things  to  which  we  attended. 

I.  I  propofed  a  number  of  plain  truths,  confidered  to  be  as 
fiift  principles,  for  your  attention. 

I.  Baptifm  is  a  pofitive  Inftltution,  about  which  we  can 
knov7  nothing,  as  to  its  being  a  Chriftlan  ordinance,  but  from 
what  Chrift,  and  thofe  infpired  by  his  Spirit,  have  taught  us. 

3.     All  which  we  are  required  to  believe  and  pradile,  with 


Sei-m.  V.J  of  Bapiifm,  45 

refpedl  to  the  Chrllnan  ordinance  of  baptifin,  is  declared  to  us 
by  Jefus  Chrilt,  and  by  his  forerunner  and  apoflles. 

3.  When  Jefus  Chrift  fi'-ft  inftitu-ed  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tilm,  he  no  doubt  delivered  his  mind  fo  clearly  and  fully  upon 
the  fubjecft,  that  his  difciples  and  iminediate  tbilowers  under- 
ftocd  and  pradifed  as  lie  would  have  them. 

4.  EveiT"  thing  which  hatli,  by  the  precepts  and  conimand- 
ftients  of  men,  been  added  fmce,  is  afide  from  the  ordinance* 
and  makes  no  part  of  it. 

5.  No  man,  nor  body  of  men,  hath  any  more  authority  to 
add  to  or  diminiih  from  this  ordinance,  than  they  have  to  infli- 
tute  a  new  one  and  call  it  Chrift's. 

56.  Whenever,  and  wherever,  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  is  fo 
changed  as  to  Icfe  the  intent  of  the  inftitution,  then  and  there 
the  ordinance  is  lofi,  and  becomes  no  Chriftian  ordinance  at  ail. 

II.  I  defined  for  your  information  a  number  of  words 
which  appertain  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm. 

We  found  all  thefe  to  be  juft  as  we  might  expefl  to  have 
found  them,  provided  immeriion  be  baptifm,  or  the  mode  in 
which  it  is  adminiftered. 

Bapiijierion,  a  place  in  which  to  wa/h  the  body.  Bapiifm,  im- 
merfion,  or  dipping  one  all  over  in  water.  Baptlzo  figniiies  to 
dip,  or  wafh.  the  body  all  over  in  water.  Lono  (a  word  feveral 
times  ufed  in  reference  to,  or  fignifying  the  fame,  as  baptifm) 
is,  to  wafti,  to  rinfe,  to  batJie,  &c.     Then, 

III.  I  fet  before  you  all  the  texts  in  the  Ne^^'-Te (lament 
which  relate  either  to  the  baptifm  of  John,  or  to  that  of  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  In  tlie  next  place,  I  propofed  for  your 
meditation  the  paflages  of  fcripture  where  wafhing  is  mention- 
ed, and  the  Greek  words  which  are  ufed.  I  then  called  your 
attention  to  thofe  pafTag^s  in  which  fprinkling  is  mentioned, 
?.nd  to  the  Greek  words  which  are  made  ufe  of.  Lafdy,  I  read 
to  you  thofe  fcriptures  where  to  dip  is  mentioned,  and  aifo  the 
Greek  words  wliich  are  rendered  to  dip. 

In  r.fjt  one  of  the  places,  where  the  ordinance  of  baptiim  is 
brought  to  view  do  we  find  one  word  about  fprinkling,  or  any 
thing  which  looks  like  it.  In  every  place  wher«  to  dip  is  men- 
tioned, we  find  a  near  relation  to  baptifm  ;  every  word  which 
is  ufed,  coming  from  the  fame  root  or  theme,  from  which 
bapt'izb  comes. 

As  to  the  v/ord  ^^oq/I:,  we  find  no  relation  between  the  words 
which  figniiy  to  walh,  and  thofe  which  fignify  to  baptjze,  fave 
in  thofe  few  inliances  where  the  meaning  is  to  wafh  the  body, 


46  The  Mode  and  Subje^s        [Serm.  V. 

or  pnt  into  water,  or  wafli  a  thing  all  over.  When  we  come 
to  the  Greek  words  which  fignlfy  to  fprlnkle,  we  find  no  fim- 
ilarity,  or  likenefs,  between  them  and  the  word  to  baptize. 

In  all  the  places  where  baptizing  is  mentioned,  uot  a  word  is 
ufed  which  looks  like  fprinkling  ;  where  fprinkling  is  mention- 
ed, there  is  not  a  word  ufed  which  appears  like  baptifru. 

In  my  next  difcourfe,  I  produced  my  evidence,  that  my 
definitions  of  baptifm  and  to  baptize  were  accurate  and  juft.  1 
dwelt  largely  upon  this  evidence,  for  the  merit  of  the  whole 
fubje(^  depends  greatly,  if  not  entirely,  upon  the  determlnaie 
meaning  of  the  words,  which  our  Lord  ufed  in  the  inftitution 
of  the  ordinance,  and  when  fpeaking  of  it.  When  we  know 
the  determinate  fignlfication  of  his  words,  we  know  what  he 
fays,  and  what  we  ought  to  underftand  by  the  words  which  he 
ufes.  The  evidence  which  I  produced,  was,  in  (hort,  the  fol- 
lowing: 

1.  The  Greek  Lexicon,  Butterworth's  Concordance,  Bai- 
ley's and  Entick's  Didionaries,  bear  their  united  teftimony, 
lliat  the  plain,  literal,  and  common,  if  not  imlverfal,  fignifica- 
tion  of  the  words  hiptifm  and  to  baptize^  is  immerfion  and  to 
immerfe,  bury  in  warer,  to  dip,  or  to  plunge  a  perfon  all  over 
in  water.  H^re  are  four  learned  and  pofiiive  witnefTes  to  the 
fame  thing.  Indeed,  they  give  no  other  fignlfication,  fave  it 
be  to  wafh,  which  we  have  feen  intends  a  ceremonial  wafliing, 
which  is  to  put  into  water,  or  to  bathe. 

2.  I  repeated  fome  of  the  attendant  or  clrcumfiantlal  fatfls, 
which  have  relation  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm.  John  bap- 
tized in  the  river  Jordan.  He  v^'as  baptizing  in  Enon  near 
to  Salim,  becaufe  there  was  much  ivater  there.  The  word 
laptijlery  fignlfics  a  place  in  which  to  wa{h  the  body  all  over. 
Baptifm  fignifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  immerfe,  or  to  wafli  the 
body  ail  over  in  water.  Biiptlzer  fignifies  one  which  dips, 
plunges,  or  wafhes  the  body  all  over  in  water.  To  hoptize  fig- 
nifies to  immerfe,  plunge  under  water,  or  under  any  other 
liquid  thing,  or  to  dip,  or  to  put  into  water.  To  be  baptized 
is  to  be  plunged,  immerfed,  or  wafhed  all  over  in  water. 

Thefe  thirg€  being  true,  is  it  not  eafy  to  determine  what  the 
ordinance  <  f  byptifm  fignifiss  ? 

3.  The  words  baptifmos  and  baptizo  have  two,  and  only  two, 
tranflHiions  in  the  New-Teftament.  Thefe  two  are  baptifm  and 
ivnfhin^.  Where  their  meaning  is  wafhing,  or  where  they  are 
thus  iranflated,  it  is  a  ceremonial  wafhing,  which  is  to  put 
into  water,  or  bathe  the  fleih  in  water,  as  you  may  lee,  J.evit,  xi. 


Serm.  V.]  of  Bapufnu  47 

32.  Numb.  xlx.  19.  When  they  are  tranflated  haptifm^  or  to 
bapti%ey  the  thing  intended  is  tlie  baptifm  of  water,  of  fire,  of 
fufFerings,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghcft. 

4.  I  brought  forward  feveral  noted  wltnefTes,  to  bear  their 
united  teftimony,  that  I  had  given  a  juft  definition  of  the  word 
bapti%d  :  thefe  were,  John  Calvin,  Zanchius,  and  Dr.  Owen. 

In  the  next  place  I  mentioned  to  you  that  Paul  repeatedly 
ufes  the  word  /<>«o,  where  he  means  the  fame  things  as  where 
he  ufes  the  word  bapti%d  ;  that  he  ufes  thefe  words  as  fignifying 
the  fame  thing.  Whereas,  louo  fignifies  to  wa(h  and  to  bathe 
the  body  in  water,  and  confequently  baptizo  means  the  fame. 

Lajlly*  I  brought  forward  Paul*s  expofition  of  the  word 
haphfrTii  and  fhowed  you,  that  he  expounds  it,  as  being  buried 
with  Chrift  in  baptifm,  or  immerfion. 

In  my  difcourfe,  which  I  next  preached  to  you,  I  produced 
evidence,  that  the  apoftles  and  primitive  Chriftians,  not  only 
underftood  the  matter  as  I  have  defcribed  it,  but  pradifed 
accordingly. 

In  fupport  of  the  apoftle*s  pra^ftice,  I  obferved,  that  the  word 
louoy  of  determinate  fignification,  which  they  ufed  to  fignify 
their  practice,  or  what  was  done  by  them  in  baptifm,  deter- 
mines or  fixes  their  pradlice  to  be  immerfion.  I  farther  obferv- 
ed, that  they  were  commanded  to  practife  baptifm,  or  to  bap- 
tize, as  I  have  defcribed  it ;  and  that  the  fcriptures  teftify, 
that  they  thus  did  ;  and  alfo  that  the  apoftles  fay,  the  mode 
of  baptizing  in  their  day  was,  by  burying  the  fubjeds  in 
baptifm. 

For  witne/Tes  that  the  primitive  church  pradifed  immerfion, 
we  have  Mofheim,  Bailey,  Calvin,  Baxter,  and  many  others, 
all  agreeing  in  this  one  point,  that  the  mode  of  baptizing,  or 
baptifm  Itfelf,  among  the  ancients,  was  immerfion.  We  have 
alfo  evidence  that  die  church  thus  pradlifed,  for  thirteen 
hundred  years,  fome  extreme  cafes  excepted.  Moreover  we 
have  widence  that  all  the  church,  in  Europe,  in  Afia,  and  in 
Africa,  fave  that  part  of  it,  which  is  now,  or  hath  been,  under 
the  bewildering  power  of  the  popes,  do  now,  and  ever  have, 
praftifed  immeifion. 

Befides  all  this,  the  very  reafons  which  the  Pedobaptifts 
afiign,  why  they  have  laid  afide  immerfion,  fhow  that  fprink- 
ling  is  not  commanded  by  the  Lord,  but  is  taught  by  the 
precepts  of  men. 

You  fee  we  have  an  ocean  of  wltnefTes  and  evidence  againft 
us  J  and  all,  or  nighly  fo,  from  our  own  denomination  oi 


48  The  Mode  and  Subjecls         [Serm.  V. 

Chriftlans.  What  a  world  of  evidence  might  we  reafonably' 
expe<fl  that  the  Baptifts  would  be  able  to  bring  for  themfelves', 
and  againft  us  and  our  practice,  would  v/e  hear  them,  when 
our  own  fide  bring  fo  much  againft  their  own  pra(5trce  and  for 
the  Baptifts  !  Befides,  this  evidence  appears  to  ftand  in  its 
full  force  againft  us,  there  being  no  oppofite  evidence  to  weaken 
its  force.  Indeed  we  are,  in  this  matter,  rriuch  like  criminals, 
who  plead,  at  leaft  the  leaders  of  them,  guHty  to  the  whole 
indi<5tm*ent.  Jiowever,  ioir.z  have  made  a  full  plea  of,  not  guilty 
but  in  part.  At  the  fame  time,  numbers  of  them,  in  their 
plea,  have  convi(5led  thcmfelves  of  being  guilty  throughout. 

In  the  laft  difcourfe,  after  holding  to  your  view  the  purport, 
end  and  defign  of  baptifm,  1  exam.ined  one  of  their  pleas  of, 
not  guilty.  But  what  evidence  did  the  the  good  man  give  of 
his  innocence  ?  Can  the  largeft  ftretch  of  charity  allow  more 
than  this,  he  kneiv  not  nuhat  he  did  ?  Was  truth  ever  brought  to 
fuch  ftraits  as  to  require  to  be  fupported  by  fuch  arguments  ? 

APPLICATION. 

FROM  a  review  of  the  whole  fubjeit,  the  following  appear 
to  flow  as  neceflary  cor/equences. 

I.  Whether  we  allow  immerfion  to  be  the  fcripture  mode 
of  baptifm,  and  the  only  one  which  it  requires,  or  not ;  one 
thing  is  clear,  that  we  have  as  much  evidence  of  its  being  fo, 
as  we  could  have,  on  fappofuion  that  it  were. 

The  fcriptures  declare,  in  various  ways,  that  this  is  the  mode, 
and  mention  no  other.  The  fcriptures  expound  themfelves 
to  mean  immerfion,  or  1)arying. 

We  find  not  a  fmgle  trace,  in  all  the  fcriptures,  where  the 
ordinance  is  fpcken  of,  of  any  thing  (hort  of  immerfion  being 
mentioned. 

Good  men,  who  are  fKilful  in  the  true  import  of  words, 
have  agreed,  that  the  plain,  literal  and  accurate  meaning  of 
the  word,  to  baptize,  is  to  imnterfe  or  bury  in  water,  &c.  Nor 
have  any  been  able  to  fhow  that  in  any  part  of  God's  word  it 
hath  any  oppofite  meaning  or  application. 

The  church  of  Je:us  Chrift  have,  in  all  ages,  underftood  the 
matter  of  baptifm  as  I  have  explained  it.  We  mult,  however, 
except  for  the  laft  three  or  five  hundred  years,  many  of  thofe 
branches  of  the  church,  which  have  been,  or  are  now,  under 
the  ju!ifdia:ion  of  the  church  of  Rome.  Tlie  purport,  end  and 
defign  of  baptifm  alfo  intimate  to  us,  that  this  is  the  manner 
of  baptizing. 


Semii.  v.]  cf  Baptijm  ^i>9 

IndeeJ,  if  there  be  any  words  in  the  Greek  language  by 
which  the  Lord  of  the  Baptifmal  Inftitution  could  have  told  us 
what  he  intended,  the  words  ufed  do  this.  For  there  are  no 
two  words  in  the  language,  or,  at  leaft,  none  which  have  come 
to  our  knowledge,  which  fo  literally,  fo  uniformly, and  fo  exprefs* 
ly,  fignify  to  immerfe,  or  wafh,  or  bathe  the  body  in  water,  as 
do  the  words  haptizo  and  louo.  Hence,  if  immerfion  be  baptifm, 
the  Lord,  if  I  may  fo  fay,  could  not  have  told  us  of  it  in  the  New 
Teftament,  if  the  words,  chofen  by  the  Koiy  Ghoft,  do  not 
afford  this  information.  If  baptifm  be  immerfion,  then  the 
two  moft  fuitable  words  have  been  chofen  to  exprefs  it ;  but 
if  fprinkling  bebaptifm,  two  words  which  were  farther  from  the 
point  could  not  have  been  found.  We  find  no  inftance,  in  the 
Bible,  where  they  are  thus  ufed.  In  fhcrt,  no  two  words, 
which  mention  the  application  of  water  in  any  way,  are  farther 
from  the  idea  of  fprinkling,  than  are  thofe  two  which  are  ufed 
when  baptifm  is  intended.  It  therefore  appears,  that  whilO:  we 
"have  ufed  fpi inkling  for  baptifm,  we  have  departed  from  the 
plain  and  primitive  import  of  the  words  ufed,  as  far  as  we 
could  without  a  complete  omiflion  of  v/ater.  None  can  be  at  a 
farther  remove  fiom  the  intlituted,  fcripture  baptifm,  than 
we  have  been,  without  denying  it  in  whole. 

2.  Error  is  very  infii^uating  and  deceiving.  Surely  it 
hath  proved  thus  in  the  iubjeft  of  fprinkling. 

Cypriar,  who  wrote  within  about  a  huiidred  and  fifty  years 
of  the  apoltles,  fpeaking  of  fprinkling,  fays,  as  quoted  by  Dr. 
Lathrop,  "In  the  facrameni  of  fahution,  (i  e.  baptifm)  when 
necejfity  compels^  the  fhrrteft  ways  of  tranfadmg  divine  matters, 
do,  by  God's  grace,  confer  the  whoh  benefit."  Here  we  fee 
the  origin  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm. 

It  was  an  early  error  In  the  church,  that  baptifm  was 
neceffary  to  falvation.  Hence,  when  it  was  judged,  that  life 
would  be  endangered  by  immerfion,  the  perfon  niuft  either 
lofe  his  life  by  baptifm,  or  lofe  his  foul  for  want  of  being  bap. 
lized,  or  fome  other  mode  muft  be  invented.-  Or,  if  the  fick 
perfon  was  nigoly  dying,  he  muR  be  baptized  without  immer- 
fion, or  probably  \^i^  his  foul,  before  he  could  be  c*  nveyed 
where  the  ordinance  ni'!ght  be  adminiftered.  Under  thefe 
circumftances,  man's  fruitful  invention  devifed  fprinkling  as  a 
fubllitute  for  baptifrn.  Here  is  the  origin  of  fprinkling,  as  the 
ancients  have  told  us. 

In  procefs  of  time,  found  ladles  and  gentlev^on»en  ^vifli  d  to 
have  fprinkhng  fublUtuted  tor  bapulm  in  their  b«haif  j  after- 

E 


so  The  Mode  and  Subjecls         [Serm.  V. 

wards  others,  till  at  laft,  It  became  a  general  cuftom  in  many 
of  the  European  nations.  In  the  mean  time,  the  Baptifts,  and 
many  others,  objedted  againft  the  pradice,  as  being  contrary 
from  the  command  of  Lhrift.  Hence  arofe  the  neceffity  of 
defending  it,  or  elfe  having  it  confidered  as  a  departure  from 
the  faith.  Matters  being  thus,  the  invention  of  many  was  in 
full  exercife  to  defend  fprinkling,  as  being  of  divine  origin.  A 
number  of  ceremonial  rites  of  the  Levitical  law  were  prefTed 
into  this  fervice  ;  feveral  parages  of  the  Ncw-Tettament  were 
wrefted  from  thei.;  natural  meaning  to  a  forced  interpretation  ; 
and  out  of  the  motley  mixture  were  formed  what  were  ftyled 
arguments  ;  but  fuch  arguments  can  iland  no  longer  than  while 
prejudice  lives  to  fupport  them. 

However,  the  moft  dlfagreeable  part  is,  a  good  number  of 
very  pious  and  learned  men  have  been  carried  away  in  this 
whirlpool  of  deception.  Their  being  deceived  has  deceived 
others ;  and  we  are,  or  have  been,  among  the  deceived. 

3.  Sprinkling  is  not  from  heaven,  but  of  men.  This  too, 
if  I  miftake  not,  by  the  fully  and  fairly  implied  conceflion  of 
thofe,  who  have  written  in  its   defence. 

If  from  heaven,  why,  in  the  firft  place,  ufe  it  only  when 
neceffity  compelled  !  as  was  fuppofed  to  fave  fouls  from  hell  ? 
If  from  heaven,  why,  afterwards,  ufe  it  only  in  cafes  of  lefs 
urgent  neceffity  ?  If  from  heaven,  why  bring  in  the  coldnefs  of 
the  count! y  as  an  excufe  for  ufmg  it  ?  If  from  heaven,  why  not 
mentioned  in  the  inftitution  of  the  ordinance,  or  in  fome  pajlTage 
■where  mention  is  made  of  baptifm,  or  in  fome  other  place  in 
all  the  writings  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles  ?  If  from  heaven, 
why  rot  intimated  as  being  fo,  by  thofe  who  firil  introduced 
it  ?  If  fprinkling  be  from  heaven,  why  fo  many  inccnclujive 
arguments  in  its  fupport  ?  Is  the  word  of  God  deficient  in  this 
particular,  and  hath  it  revealed  what  cannot  be  fupported  by 
it  ?  If  from  heaven,  why  not  commanded,  enjoined,  required, 
or  fo  much  as  once  hinted,  as  being  a  mode  of  a  gofpel  ordi- 
nance, in  any  part  of  that  revelation  which  we  have  received 
from  heaven  ? 

4.  Another  confequence  is,  That  the  fcripture  mode  of 
bap'ifm  is  immerfion,  and  for  aught  we  know,  the  only  mode, 
and  neceflary  to  the  adminiftration  of  the  ordinance. 

This  is  the  plain,  literal,  fcripture  fenfe  of  baptifm  j  there- 
fore this  is  the  plain,  literal,  fcripture  mode.  The  fcriptures 
mention  no  other  mode  ;  therefore  this  may  be,  and  i?,  for 
aught  appears,  ih?  only  fcriptur?  irode. 


Serm.  V.]  of  Baptifm.  5i 

5.  From  what  we  have  gone  over,  one  thing  appears  cer» 
tain  :  That  Chrift  never  commanded  any  of  his  followers  ta 
adminifter  any  gofpel  ordinance  by  fprinkling,  and,  at  the  fame 
time,  to  fay,  /  baptize.  For  to  do  thus,  wouM  be  to  command 
them  to  do  one  t lying,  and  to  fay  that  they  did  another, 

Tofprlnkfe  is  to  rantize,  which  hath  no  vifible  connexion  wich 
baptifm.  To  fay,  Chrift  commanded  his  difciples  to  rantize, 
and,  at  the  fame  time,  to  fay,  We  baptize,  is  what  noChriftian 
would,  knowingly,  be  willing  to  fay.  This  would,  if  I  miftake 
not,  be  making  Chrift  the  minifter  of  fm.  But  what  I  have 
long,  implicitly,  though  ignorantly,  done,  others  may  ftill  do. 

6.  Another  confequence  is,  cuftom  hath  great  influence 
upon  the  human  mind.  It  furely  hath  upon  us.  For,  even 
after  we  have  full  evidence  that  fprinkling,  for  baptifm,  is  not 
from  heaven,  but  was  the  ofFipring  of  error,  and  foflered  by  the 
dark  ages  of  Papiftical  ufurpation,  we  are  hardly  perfuaded  to 
renounce  it.  But,  my  brethren,  my  expectation  is,  that  after 
you  have  fearched  your  Bibles  through  and  through>  and  find 
nothing  of  it  there,  you  will  give  it  up. 

Should  the  Lord  inquire  of  us,  why  we  fabftitute  fprinkling 
for  baptizing,  and  fay  unto  us.  Whence  is  this  fubrititution,  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ?  Would  there  not  be  great  reafonings 
among  us  what  anfwer  to  return  ?  Should  we  fay.  From 
heaven  ;  he  miglit  reply,  How  do  you  prove  it  ?  Should  we 
fay.  Of  men,  then  might  he  afk,  Why  do  you  praCtife  it  ? 

7.  Another  confequence  is,  we  have  the  fame  kind  of  evi- 
dence, and  perhaps  more  of  it,  that  baptifm  is  to  be  adminif- 
tered  by  immerfion,  or  dipping,  or  putting  into  water,  than  v/c 
have  to  fupport  any  other  gofpel  precept,  or  pradice.  The 
evidence  which  we  have,  in  either  cafe,  is  the  iignification  of 
the  words  which  are  ufed  to  point  out  the  thing  to  be  believed^ 
or  pradlifed. 

Were  it  not  for  the  influence  of  habit,  or  cuftom,  you  would 
as  readily  and  naturally  conclude,  from  the  very  words  ufed, 
that  immerfion,  or  dipping,  or  waftiing  the  body  in  water,  was 
the  meaning  of  baptifm,  as  that  a  religious  eating  of  bread, 
and  drinking  of  wine,  in  commemoration  of  our  dying  Lord, 
was  the  way  to  obferve  the  Lord's  fupper. 
^  8.  We  appear  to  be  brought  to  this  dilemma  :  We  muft 
either  embrace  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  for  the  rule  of  one 
part  of  our  pra(n:ice  j  or  we  muft  no  more  fprinkle  and  call 
it  baptifm. 
9.     Another  confequence  is,  Thofe,  who  firft  introduced 


3^  llje  Mode  and  Subje^s        [S^rm.  V. 

fprinkling  for  baptizing,  had  no  more  right  fo  to  do,  than  they 
had  to  inftitute  a  new  rite,  or  ordinance,  and  call  it  Chrift's. 

What  authority  havt  wc  to  follow  their  erroneous  and  hurt>- 
ful  praAice  ? 

10.  We  have  another  confeqnence  worthy  of  confideration, 
and  it  is  this :  The  Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm  is  a  moft  fol- 
emn  and  fignificant  ordinance,  and  of  very  high  importance. 

I  fpeak  not  of  the  vifible,  or  adual  adminiftration  of  it,  in 
particular  ;  for  I  never  fav/  it  adminiftered,  as  Chrift  hath 
delivered  it  to  his  people  :  But  I  refer  to  the  purport,  end  and 
defign  of  it.  It  is,  amoTig  many  other  things,  the  great  divi- 
ding line,  which  Heaven  I.ath  appointed  to  be  drawn  between 
the  vifible  kingdom  of  Immanuel,  and  the  men  of  this  world. 
Doubtlefs  there  are  a  large  number  who  belong  to  Chrift's 
invifible  kingdom,  who  are  not,  ftrictly  fpeaking,  or  regularly, 
in  his  kingdom  vifibly,  having  not  fubmitted  to  this  ordinance, 
which  is  the  great  an.d  important  line  of  diftin(5tion. 

11.  It  appears  that  we  are,  truly,  in  a  trying  ftate.  We 
muft  depart,  in  one  inRance,  from  a  long  habit,  or  continue  to  do 
as  we  have  done,  and  yet  not  be  able  to  vindicatse,  by  the  fcrip- 
tures  of  truth,  our  own  condu<ft. 

Lajily.  We  come,  at  length,  to  the  anfwer  of  this  old  and 
difficult  and  perplexing  queftion  :  Where,  and  when,  did  the 
religious  feft  called  Baptifts,  arife  ?  The  anfwer  is,  plainly, 
this :  They  arofe  in  Ju.lea,  at  the  time  when  John  came, 
preaching  in  the  wildernefs  the  baptifm  of  repentance.  I  men- 
tion this  confequence  with  confiderable  affurance,  becaufe  the 
New-Teft ament  abundantly  favours  it,  and  no  man  is  able  to 
contradid  me.  Should  any  attempt  it,  he  will  fail  for  want 
of  evidence.  I  fhould,  not  long  fmce,  have  been  gratified,  could 
I  have  found  their  origin  any  where  in  the  dark  ages  of  Popery, 
or  at  tlie  commencement  of  the  reformation,  among  the  famous 
entliufnfts  of  Germany,  Holland,  Switzerland,  or  Weftphalia. 
But,  after  having  long  purfued  the  perplexing  refearch,  I 
found  their  oi'igWi  where  I  Icaft  of  all  expeifted  it,  in  Enoa  and 
Jordan. 

A  few  queftions  are  now  to  clofe  the  prefent  fubjed:. 

1.  Is  not  immerfion  the  fcripture  baptifm  ? 

2.  Is  fprinkling  a  mode  of  baptizing  warranted  by  fcrip^ 
ture  ?     If  fo,  where  ? 

7;.  Are  Old^Teftanaent  rkes  to  explain  New.Teftament 
ordinances  ?  Is  Mofes  to  corred  what  Chrill  hath  left  incom* 
plete  ?    Is  it  fo  I 


Serm.  V.J  of  Baptifm.  53 

4.  Will  Chrill  approve  of  that  pradlice  of  men,  which  fo 
changes  his  pofitive  inftitution,  as  to  lofe,  greatly  to  lofe,  the 
purport,  end  and  defign  of  it  ? 

5.  Was  it  ever  right,  and  is  it  now,  for  men  to  change 
what  Chrirt  hath  commanded  to  be  in  perpetual  obfervation  ? 
Did  the  fuppofed  extreme  fa/9r  jiiftlfy  this  change  at  firft,  and 
wiil  trifling  inconveniences  juftify  us  now  ? 

6.  Will  it  be  wife  and  fafe  for  us  continually  to  forfake  the- 
commandment  of  Chrift  for  the  precepts  of  men  .^ 

7.  Do  you,  my  brethren,  or  can  you,  blame  me  for  wi{h» 
ing  you  to  keep  the  ordinances  of  Chrift  as  he  hath  delivered 
them  to  the  faints  ? 

8.  Should  1  have  manifefted  myfelf  your  friend,  or  Chrift's, 
if,  after  having  found  fuch  a  precious,  new  and  old  treafure  in 
his  word,  as  is  the  Chriftian  ordinance  of  baptifm,  I  had  not 
ventured  my  life,  or  in  other  words,  my  reputation,  my 
eafe,  my  property,  and  my  every  worldly  conftderation,  to 
bring  it  forth  to  your  A'iew  and  acceptance,  that  you  might 
more  fully  walk  in  all  tlie  ftatutes  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 
blamelefs  ? 

One  requeft,  my  brethren,  I  pray  you  to  grant  me,  and  it  is 
this ;  Search  the  fcriptures  devoutly,  and  follow  me  fi>  far  as- 
I  follow  Jefu..  Chrift,  your  Lord  and  mine. 

SERMON    VI. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,   and  teach  all  nations^  baptizing  them  in  the  name- 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghojl ;  teaching 
them  to  obferve  all  things   luhatfoever  J  have  commanded  you  ,* 
/ind,    lo,    J  am    with  you  alivay^    even   unto  tJi€  end  of  the 
nvorld.     Amen* 

I  HAVE  already  obferved  to  you  that  Chrift  Jefus,  the 
Head  of  the  church,  and  Lord  of  all,  was  now  conitituting- 
his  prefent  and  fucceeding  difoiples  to  be  apoftles  unto  all  na- 
tions.    My  text  is  their  commiflion,  and  general  andpariicular 
orders.     In  it  they  are  dire(5led — 
L     To  go  and  difciple  all  nations. 
IL     To  baptize  them  in  the  nam-;  of  tb?  Father,  fe 


54  The  Made  and  Subjeds         [Serm.  VL 

III.  He  direfts  thefts  newly  conftituted  apoftles,  and  all 
their  fuoceffors,  to  teach  their  baptized  difciples  to  obferve  all 
things  whatfoever  he  had  given  in  commandment. 

La/liy,  For  tli^ir  encouragement  and  comfort,  he  adds, 
And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world* 
Amen. 

What  I  purpofed  to  fay  to  you,  particularly,  upon  the  fecond 
propofition,  I  have  faid.      I  now  recur  to  the 

I.  Which  contains  Chrift's  command  to  his  difcipks  to  go 
and  d'ljcipk  all  nations. 

1  have  already  fhowed  you  what  baptifm  is,  and  the  defign 
of  it.  1  am  now,  if  the  Lord  will,  to  lay  open  what  is  com- 
manded to  be  done  before  baptifm  be  adrainiftered^  alfo  the 
evidence  which  the  Lord  may  afford  me  to  prove  to  you  that 
my  inRrudion  is  of  him. 

Your  feelings,  ray  brethren  and  people,  have  no  doubt  been 
highly  wrought  up,  whilft  I  have  opened  before  you  one  of  the 
laws  of  ChritVs  kingdom  amongft  men.  I  have  ftill  more 
things  to  fay  unto  you  refpc-ding  the  rules  and  regulations  of 
this  kingdom.  I  pray  the  Lord,  that  your  minds  may  be  fo^ 
prepared  XS)  hear,  that  you  may  not  forfake  me  and  fke,  as 
many  of  Chrift's  profeffed  friends  did,  when  he  preached  on  a 
fubjedl:  which  greatly  crclTed  their  prejudices  ai-d  carnal  ex- 
pectations. 

Your  bufy  minds,  no  doubt,  will,  before  you  are  a^are,  be 
inquiring  what  great  and  good  men,  in  our  days  and  in  the 
days  of  our  fathers,  have  fald  and  thought  of  thefe  things ; 
but  we  fhould  look  farther  back  than  to  our  forefathers.  The 
man  Chrift  Jefus,  and  his  infpired  prophets  and  apoftles, 
fliould  be  the  men  of  our  counfel.  Should  I  fpeak  according 
to  tiiefe,  you  may  hearken  to  me  with  fafety  :  if  contrary, 
ccnvid  me  by  the  word  and  teftimony  of  Jefus  Chrift  ;  for  1 
appeal  to  thefe,  for  by  them  I  ought  to  be  judged. 

One  requeft,  my  hearers,  I  pray  you  to  grant  me  ;  namely 
— Lay  prejudice  afide,  and  let  fcripture,  reafon  and  common 
fenfe  be  heard  for  a  few  minutes. 

Surely  you  muft  confider  my  cafe  more  trying  tlian  any  of 
yours.  For  it  is,  perhaps,  as  difficult  for  me  to  combat  my 
own  prejudices  and  carnal  feelings,  as  it  is  for  any  of  you  to 
contend  with  his :  Befides  this,  I  have  to  look  your  prejudices 
in  the  face,  while  I  venture  to  bring  any  of  your  old  practices 
to  the  fcriptures  for  trial.  Yes,  more  than  all  this,  I  have 
many  trials  to  encounter,  which  you  have  not,  nor  can  have. 


Serm.  VI. J  of  Baptifriu  5S 

I  fiiould  not  have  mack  the  attempt  to  brtnpr  oar  former 
praftice  to  the  ftandard  for  trial,  had  not  my  difficulties  been 
fo  great,  that  I  durft  proceed  no  farther,  without  proving  my 
works.  One  of  my  practices  hath  been  weighed  in  the  balance, 
and  is  found  wanting.  I  am  now,  if  my  heart  deceive  me 
not,  willing  to  lead  another  of  my  works,  or  the  fubjedts  on 
which  fome  of  my  works  have  been,  to  the  bar  for  trial.  If  this- 
{hall  be  found  of  wood,  hay  or  ftubblc,  may  the  fire  of  truth 
burn  it  up,  and  may  the  fire  of  love  caufe  me  to  rejoice 
while  it  (hail  be  confuming. 

The  proportion  which  will  bring  this  other  of  my  works  to 
the  trial,  is — 

Cbrift  commands  his  minifters  to  go  and  dlfciple  all  nations. 
I  have  engaged  to  be  one  of  thefe  minifters.  The  command 
is,  therefore,  binding  upon  me.  I  have  gone  forth,  thai  I 
might  obey.  The  great  thing  to  be  determined  is,  whether  1 
have  underftood  what  it  is  to  difciple,  or  to  make  difciples, 
and  have  praftifed  accordingly. 

The  important  queftion  to  be  decided  is  juft.  this  :  If  I  dif- 
ciple any  of  you  who  are  parents,  do  1,  as  a  neceflary  confe- 
quence,  difciple  all  your  children  and  houfeholds  ? 

The  only  difficulty,  in  this  queftion,  relates  to  children  and 
houfeholds.  What  it  is  to  difciple  the  mafter  of  a  family,  is  a 
thing  in  which  Chriftians  gei^rally  agree. 

1  ought  juft  to  remark  to  jcu,  that  matheUu/a/e,  to  teach,  is,, 
in  its  literal  and  genuine  fenfe,  ta  difciple,  or  fo  to  teach  as  to 
make  difcipks. 

To  bring  the  queftion  befoie  you  as  fully  as  I  can,  I  wiffi 
you,  each  one  of  you,  to  fix  his  attention  upon  fome  one  family  in 
this  town,  in  which  family  not  a  Chriftian  is  to  be  found.  If 
each  one  have  his  mind  fixed  upon  fuch  a  Chriftlefs  houfchold, 
I  will  now  put  the  queftion  :— 

Suppofe  I,  inftrumentally,  difciple  the  father  of  this  family,, 
do  I,  as  a  certain  confequenee,  make  difciples  of  the  whole 
family  ? 

Before  you  determine  the  queftion,  it  may  be  well  to  fix  in 
your  minds  what  a  difciple  is.  Let  the  fcriptures  fpeak.  The 
difcipl'^s  were  called  Chriftians  firft  at  Antioch,  kCts  xi.  26. 
The  cDmmiflloH  which  Chrift  gave  to  the  firft  minifters,  and 
to  all  fnccceding  ones,  as  recorded  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  ie,  Go 
ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature;, 
he  that  belkveihy  &c.  Here  a  believer  is  the  fame  as  a  difcipU, 
Here  we  f«c  a^  dlCciple,  io.  the  f^nJfe  of  my  tes^  is  a  believer,,  tu 


56  The  Mode  and  Subjeds       [Serm.  VI. 

believer  In  Chrift,  a  Chriltian.  This  is  the  idea  which  the  New- 
Teftament,  from  beginning  to  end,  gives  us  of  a  difciple. 
There  is,  however,  mention  made  of  difciples,  who  were  fo 
but  by  profeffion,  or  who  were  vifible  difciples  only ;  not 
having  the  love  of  God  in  them. 

Now  try  the  queftion  witli  refpe<a  to  both  forts  of  thefc 
difciples. 

Suppofe  I,  inftrumentally,  difciple  the  father  of  a  Chriftlefs 
family,  do  1,  as  a  neceflary  confequence,  make  Chriftians  of  all 
in  his  hotfe  ?  You  will  pleafe  to  make  up  your  minds,  on  this 
queftion,  decidedly. 

Suppofe  again,  that  I,  inftrumentally,  difciple  the  father  of 
a  Chriftlefs  family,  do  I,  as  a  neceffary  confequence,  make 
vijii/e  difciples  of  all  his  family  ?  Let  ycur  minds  be  clearly 
determined  as  to  the  anfwer. 

Once  more  ;  fuppofe  I,  by  delivering  the  Lord^s  meffage, 
convert,  or  make  a  difciple  of  the  father  of  a  Chriftlefs  family, 
do  I,  of  neceffary  confequence,  make  any  one  oi  his  houfehold 
befides  himfelf  a  difciple  ?* 

Let  fcripture,  let  reafon,  let  common  fenfe,  let  any  thing 
fpeak,  which  will  fpeak  the  truth,  and  determine  thefe  queftions. 
Confider,  take  advice,  and  fpeak  your  minds. 

Can  you  fuppofe,  or  can  you  not,  that  to  make  a  father  of  a 
family  a  difciple,  his  wife,  his  fervants,  and  his  children,  are 
all  difciples  of  courfe,  or  of  neceffary  confequence  ? 

Is  not  this  a  clear  cafe  ?  and  yet  the  great  and  momentous 
fubjeft  before  us  turns  altogether  upon  the  anfwer  of  this 
queftion. 

If  difcipling  the  father  of  a  family  renders  all  his  houie  dif- 
ciples, they  are  all  fuhje<5ts  of  baptifm,  they  have  the  fcripture 
qualification  for  it ;  if  it  do  not,  then  they  have  not  the  qual- 
ification which  my  text  requires  to  be  in  thofe  who  are  bap- 
tized. 

You  will  judge  for  yourfelves  whether  houfeholds  do  thus 
become  difciples  ;  as  for  the  reft,  the  fcriptures  determine  :  if 
they  be  difciples,  they  are  to  be  baptized  ^  if  not,  they  are  not 
to  be. 

I  know  what  your  anfwer  muft  be,  for  by  inconteftablefads, 
in  this  town,  the  difc?pling  of  a  father  of  a  family  does  not 
difciple  his  houfehold  f  it  does  not  even  make  them  vifible  dif- 
ciples, or  give  them  even  the  appearance  of  being  fo. 

*  Pffjudice  may  reply,  You  are  to  difciple  the  hoiifeholdby  baptizing 
them.    'J  his  contradicts  my  text,  that  fays,  difciple  them  firft; 


Serm.  VL]  of  Baptifm.  57 

The  following  is  for  evidence,  that  perfons  muil  be  made 
difciples  before  they  are  baptized. 

1.  John  made  his  hearers  difciples  before  he  baptized  them. 
He  required,  in  order  for  baptifm,  that  they  Ihonld  bring  forth 
fruits  meet  for,  or  as  evidence  of,  repentance,  Matt.  iii.  8.  and 
Luke  iii.  8. 

2.  Chrift's  difciples  baptized  none  but  fuch  as  were  made 
difciples  firft,  John  iv.  i,  2. 

3.  Chrift,  in  my  text,  gives  no  liberty  to  baptize  any  but 
fuch  as  are  firft  difcipied.  Yes,  he  commands  his  minifters  to 
difciple  before  they  baptize. 

The  account  which  Mark  gives  us  of  .lie  Apoftles*  commif- 
fion,  and  of  the  Baptifmal  Inftitution,  is  confirming  evidence  in 
this  matter,  xvith  chapter,  15  th  and  i6th  verfes ;  *  Preach  the 
gofpel  to  every  creature  :  He  that  believetli,  and  is  baptized,* 
&c.  Here  believing  is  p^n  before  baptifm.  The  way  adopt- 
ed by  fome  to  avoid  the  force  of  this  text  is,  if  they  be  bap- 
tized, fay  they,  no  matter  when,  before  or  after  believing.  This 
way  of  getting  clear  of  tlie  difficulty  appears  neither  wife  nor 
candid  ;  for  it  injures  the  plain  meaning  of  the  text,  and 
makes  Matthew*s  and  Mark's  account  of  the  commiffi  jn  to 
difagree. 

What  remains  are  a  number  of  plain  trutns,  fads  and  con» 
fequences,  which  have  a  more  near  or  remote  relation  with 
the  fubjeifl  on  hand,  and  may  ferve   to  throw  light  upon  it. 

In  the  FiasT  place,  we  may  take  notice  of  two  particulars* 
which  perhaps  have  not  been  fufficiently  noticed. 

One  is,  the  ceremonial  law,  and  the  covenant  of  circumcifioa 
which  v/as  annexed  to  it,  appear  to  be  difannuUed  and  pad 
gway. 

The  following  may  make'this  matter  plain  :  The  difannuUing 
or  abolifhing  of  the  law  we  fee,  Heb.  vii.  18.  There  is  verily 
a  difannulliag  of  the  commandment  going  before,  for  the 
weaknefs  and  unprotitablenefs  thereof  Alfo  Gal.  iii.  19, 
Wherefore  then  ferveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added  becaufe  of 
tranfgrefllons  till  the  feed  (houid  come  to  whom  \ht  promifi  was 
made.  What  feed  this  is,  to  whom  the  pronsife  was  made^ 
we  are  told  in  the  i6:h  vtrk  of  the  fame  chapter,  "  Now  to 
Abraham  and  his  feed  were  the  promifes  made  :  He  faith  not 
to  feeds,  as  of  many  ;  biat  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  feed,  which  is 
Chrift..*'  We  henc«  fee,  that  Chrift  was  the  feed  to  whom  the 
promifes  were  made,  and  chat  ihe  law  (the  ceremonial  law)  was 
add?d  becaufe  of  tranfgreiHons,  till  the  feed,  i,  e.  Chrift,  fliould 


58  The  Mode  and  Subje&s         [Serm.  VI* 

com€.  It  Is  hence  plain,  that  the  ceremonial  law  was  to  con- 
tinue no  longer  than  till  Chrifl  came. 

The  covenant  of  circumcifion  appears  to  be  annexed  to  this 
law.  For  fays  Jefus  Chrift,  John  vii.  23,  If  a  man  on  the  fab- 
bath  day  receive  circumcifion^  that  the  law  of  Mofes  fliould  not 
be  broken^  are  ye  angry  at  me  ?  &c. 

That  this  covenant  of  circumcifion,  or  the  Sinai  covenant, 
which  includes  it,  hath  pafTed  away,  or  is  difannulled,  fee  Heb. 
viii.  13.  *  In  that  he  faith  a  new  covenant,  he  hath  made  the 
iirft  old  :  now  that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready 
to  vanifh  away.* 

Befides,  circunicifion  is  evidently  a  very  important  part  of 
that  law,  which  is  difannulled  ;  for,  faith  Paul  to  the  Galatians, 
chap.  V.  2,  3,  If  ye  be  circumcifed^  Chrift  fhaW profit  you  nothing* 
For  I  teftify  again,  fays  he,  to  every  man  that  is  circumcifed, 
that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law. 

It  is  hence  plain,  that  the  ceremonial  law  is  no  longer  bind- 
ing ;  and  tliat  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  was  incor- 
porated wtth  it,  hath  vanlflied  away. 

The  other  particular  is  this ;  the  promifes  which  were  made 
to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  were  not  made  to  him  in  circumcifion^ 
but  in  uncircumcifion  ;  and  tlie  covenant  which  was  confirmed 
of  God  to  Abraham  in  Chrift,  was  while  he  was  in  uncircumci^ 
Jiouj  and  about  twenty-four  years  before  the  covenant  oi  circum- 
ci/ion  vfcLS  given.  Rom.  iv.  8,  9,  10. — Gal,  iii.  16,  17 — Gen, 
xii.  3,  4,  7,  and  xvii.  10,  17. 

Moreover,  when  Paul  fpeaks  of  the  covenant  which  was 
confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  he  points  out  the  exa<5t  year  wlien 
this  was  made  known  or  confirmed  with  Abraham,  as  though 
he  had  a  forefight,  as  certainly  the  Holy  Ghoft  had,  of  the  con- 
tention which  ihould  be  long  continued  for  want  of  judicioufly 
underftanding  what  covenant  fhould  be  difannulled,  and  what 
covenant  the  law  could  not  difannul.  He  tells  us,  Gal.  iii.  17, 
that  this  covenant,  which  cannot  be  made  void,  was  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before  the  law  ;  whereas  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  was  about  four  hundred  and  fix  years  before  the 
law,  with  which  circumcifion  was  united. 

Seeing  matters  are  thus,  what,  I  pray  you,  my  hearers,  have 
we  to  do  with  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ?  If  we  keep  it, 
Chrift  fhall  profit  us  nothing  ;  if  we  obferve  fomething  which 
we  fubftitute  in  its  place,  Chrift  may  profit  us  as  little  in  fuch 
obfervance.  ' 


Serm.  VL]  of  Baptifnu  59 

I  know  it  will  be  afked,   Is  not  the  church  the  fame  now 
that  it  was  in  Abraham's  day  ?     I  anfwer,  yes,  and  the  fame 
that  it  was  in  Noah's,  Enoch's,  and  Adam's,  and  the  fame  that 
it  ever  will  be.      It  will  be  afked  again,  Is  not  ihe  covenant  the 
fame  which  it  was  in  Abraham's   time  ?     Yes,  the  covenant 
which  was  confirmed   of  God  in  Chrift  is  unchangeably  the 
fame  ;  but  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  which  God  made  with 
Abraham,  renewed  with  Ifaac  and  Jacob,  and  Iblemnlzed  with 
Ifrael  in  the  wilderaefs,  (^Z)f«/.  xxix.  lo,    ii,   12,  13,)  is  far 
from  being  the  covenant,  the  nenv  covenant^  which  God  makes 
with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  in  our  day.     The  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion was,   more  than  17CO  years  ago,  decaying,  waxing  old, 
and  ready  to  vanifh  away.     But  you  will  again  fay.  Is  net  the 
church  compoled  of  parents  and  children,   and  of  houfeholds, 
now,  as  it  was  in   Abraham's  day  ?     Let  Paul  anfwer  how  it 
was  (as  touching   the  gofpel)  in  Abraham's   day  and   after. 
Rom,  ix.  6,  7,  8.     *  They  are  not  all  Ifrael  which  are  of  Ifrael, 
neither  becaufe  they   are  the  feed   of  Abrahann,  are   chey  all 
children  :  but  in  Ifaac  fhall  thy  feed  be  called.     That  is,  they 
that  are  the  children  of  the  flefh,  thefe  are  not  the  children  of 
God  :     but  the  children  of   the   promile  are  counted  for  tlie 
feed.'     Juft  fo  now.     The  children  of  God,   the   children   of 
the  promife  are  counted  for  the  feed,  and  compofe  the  church  ; 
and  of  thofe   who  appear  thus  fhould  the  vifible  chuch  be 
made  up,  and  of  none  elfe.     But,  if  by  the  queftfon  be  meant, 
Does  not  church-memberftiip   dei'cend   from   parents   to  chil- 
dren, and  from  matters  to  fervants,  as  it  appears  to  have  done 
under  the  old  covenant  of  circumcifion  ?  '1  he   anfwer  is,  The 
New-Teftament  no  where  acknowledges,  nor  does  it  knew,  any 
thing  about  a  church   thus  made  up.     I  would   that  all  good 
men  would  confent  to  take  New-Teftament  diredlicns  and  ex- 
amples  by    which   to    conftitute  and  guide  New-Teftament 
churches. 

But  it  will  be  afked  once  more.  Hath  not  baptifm  come 
Into  the  place  of  circumcifion,  and  to  be  applied  to  fimilar  fub- 
jeds  ?  AnJ-iver.  Circumcifion  was  a  pofirive  inftitution,  and 
fo  is  baptifm.  Abraham  and  the  Ifraelites  knew  nothing  to 
whom  circumcifion  ihould  be  adnr'iniftered,  but  as  they  receiv- 
ed diredlion  from  the  Divine  Inftitutor ;  juft  fo  it  is  with  re- 
fped  to  the  adrnini'tiation  of  baptifm.  The'Chriftians  at  An- 
tioch,  the  Elders  at  Jerusalem,  the  church  of  Galatia,  and  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  knev/  nothing  of  baptifm  being  fubftituccd!  fir 
circumcifion,     4^^  xv,  i  to  35  j  QaL  iii.  and  v,  chapters.    We 


60  The  Mode  and  Subjeas       [Sertn.  VI 

know  nothing,  and -can  know  nothing,  as  to  whom  baptirm  Is 
to  be  adminiikred,  but  trom  what  Chrift  hath  told  us  as  to  the 
Aibjeds.     No"R^»— 

Secondly,  I  afk,  What  evidence  have  we  from  the  Bible  that 
infants  are  to  be  baptized  ? 

You  may/eplj,  'riiey  are  included  in  the  covenant.  What 
covenant  ?  In  that  of  circumcifion  ?  Surely  not,  for  that 
hath  vaniflied  away.  If  you  fay.  In  the  covenant  that  was  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Chrift,  I  aTifivtr,  It  was  not  this  covenant 
which  entitled  Abraham's  hcufehold  to  circumcifion ;  there- 
fore, though  your  children  be  in  this  covenant,  that  dees  not, 
cf  itfelf,  entitle  them  to  baptifm ;  whether  baptifm  be  in  the 
place  of  circumcifion,  or  not.  You  will  then  fay,  What  can 
entitle  cur  children  to  baptifm  ?  Anjiver.  Their  being  difci^ 
pies,  and  fo  coming  within  the  compafs,  or  pale,  of  ihebapiiC' 
mal  inftituiion. 

As  we  can  know  nothing  of  the  fubjeds  of  baptifm,  any- 
more tlian  Abraham  and  ifrael  could  of  the  fiibjects  of  cir- 
cumcifion, but  from  what  we  are  informed  in  the  inftitution, 
and  in  what  is  faid  upon  it,  we  will  inquire  what  the  Bible  faith 
of  this  matter. 

If  the  Lord,  in  his  word,  hath  not  given  us  fufiicient  in- 
Oruclion  upon  this  fubje6t,  we  muft  pradife  in  the  dark,  for 
we  liave  no  where  elfe  to  go. 

We  will  begin  with  John.  i.  Did  he  baptize  any  children  ? 
We  have  no  evidence  that  he  did.  Befides,  he  told  the  mul- 
titude which  attended  his  miniftry,  not  to  plead  Abraham,  or 
Abraham's  covenant,  as  a  title  to  baptifm.  Matt.  iii.  7,  8, 
9,    10. 

2.  Did  Chrift's  dlfciples,  whilft  he  was  with  them,  and 
^vhilft  they  made  and  baptised  more  dlfciples  tlian  John,  baptize 
infants,  or  any  vifibly  unbelieving  children  ?  No  evidence  that 
they  did. 

g.  Is  there  any  evidence  from  my  text,  which  contains  the 
words  of  the  inftitution,  that  infants,  or  unbelieving  houfeholds, 
were  to  be  baptized  ?     None  ;    but  the  contrary. 

4.  Is  there  any  pafTage  in  the  New  Teftament,  which  com- 
mands, or  fays  fo  much  as  one  word,  that  infants  are  to  be 
baptized?     Not  one. 

5.  Is  there  any  example,  which  fhows  that  the  apoftles  bap- 
tized any  upon  the  faith  of  parents,  or  mailers,  or  v^on  the 
faith  or  promifes  of  any  others  f 


Serm.  VL]  of  B  apt  if m.  6r 

I  know,  my  brethren,  there  are  three  inftances,  which  are  fup- 
pofed  hj  fome  to  favour  the  ?flirmative  of  the  queftion.  I  have 
rather  been  of  the  fame  opinion.  If  it  he  fo,  may  fd(fl:s  con« 
vince  us. 

We  will  look  at  each  of  thefe  examples  feparately. 

The  lirft  fuppofed  example  we  find  at  Philippi.  Here  v;as 
a  woman,  named  Lydia ;  fhe  appears  to  have  been  a  woman 
of  bufinefs.  She  belonged  to  Thyatira,  hut  was  now  at  Phi- 
lippi, probably  felling  her  merchandize,  with  feveral  attendants. 
The  hiftory  is  thus  related,  ^Itts  xvi.  i3ih,  14th  and  15th  verfes. 
*'  On  the  fahbath  ddy,  we  (Paul  and  other  difciples)  went  out 
of  the  city,  hy  a  river  fide,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made, 
and  we  fat  down,  and  fpake  unto  the  women  who  reforted 
thither.  And  a  certain  woman,  named  Lydia,  a  feller  of 
purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  who  worfhipped  God,  heard 
us,  whofe  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  fhe  attended  unto  the 
things  which  were  fpoken  of  Paul.  And  when  fhe  was  bap- 
tized and  her  houfchold,  fhe  befought  us,  faying.  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  houfe  and 
abide  there." 

This  is  all  we  know  cf  the  matter.  She  belonged  to  another 
city.  She  worfhipped  God.  She  was,  on  the  fabbath  day,  by 
the  fide  of  a  river,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made. 
The  Lord  opened  her  heart  to  attend  to  what  Paul  faid.  Her 
fervants  were  with  her.  She  had  a  houfe,  either  her  own, 
or  one  taken  for  the  time.  She  Vvas  baptized,  and  her  houfe- 
hold.  As  to  hsr  having  infants  with  her,  you  can  tell,  as  well 
as  I.  Moreover,  whether  her  fervants  believed  the  words  of 
Paul,  you  can,  if  you  attend  to  the  circumftances,  form  as 
correcH:  a  judgment,  perhaps,  as  any  other  can  make  up  for 
you. 

The  things  to  be  confidered  are,  i.  Lydia  was  a  godly  wo- 
man. 2.  She  attended  meeting.  Paul  found  her  where  prayer, 
was  wont  to  be  made,  where  religious  women  had  been  accuf- 
tomed  to  meet.  3.  She,  like  other  religious  people,  took  her 
houfehold  to  m.eeting  with  her.  4.  it  appears  that  Paul  bap- 
tized none  of  her  houfehold,  but  iiich  as  were  with  her  at  the 
female  praying  meeting.  5.  The  flrong  probabiUty  is,  tliat 
Lydia.  being  a  pious  woman,  one  who  worfhipped  God,  would 
feleft  for  her  attendants,  m.aidens  or  fervants  who  alfo  were 
worlhippers  of  God.  In  verfe  40,  we  are  told,  the  apoftles 
entered  into  the  houfe  of  Lydia,  comforted  the  brethren,  &c. 
F 


€^  Th  Mode  and  Subjeas        [Serm.Vt 

You  will  weigh  thefe  circumftarces,  and  make  up  for  your- 
felves,  fo  far  as  yen  can,  a  righteous  judgment. 

The  next  example  is  lecorded  in  the  fame  chapter,  and  ap- 
pears to  be  in  the  fame  city.  The  hiftory  of  the  matter  is  con- 
tained in  the  25th  verfe,  and  on  to  the  34ih.     The  noticeable 

facis,  and  on  which   we  muft   make  up  our  judgment,  are 

The  jailer  fays,  Sirs,  What  muft  I  do  to  be  faved  ?  Paul  and 
Silas  anfwered.  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrirt,  and  thou 
ihalt  be  faved,  and  thy  houfe.  And  they  fpake  unto  him  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  houfe.  And  he 
was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  ftiaightway — ^snd  rejoiced,  believ- 
ing  in  God  with  all  his  houfe. 

Here  are  th.ree  things  to  be  put  together,  i.  The  word  of 
the  Lord  Jefus  was  fpoken  to  them  all.  z.  They  were  all 
baptized  3.  They  all  believed  in  God.  Whether  here  be  any 
example  of  infant  baptifm,  you  will  judge,  each  one  for  him- 
felf. 

As  fome  have  fuppofed  that  this  paffage,  and  a  few  otheis 
Gi  fimilar  import,  afford  an  argument  in  favour  of  fprinkling, 
it  vciiy  be  well  to  give  it  a  moment's  confideration.  Here  we 
are  told,  that  the  keeper  of  the  prifon  brought  out  Paul  and 
Silas.  Where  he  brought  them  to,  feems  plainly  enough  to 
be  gathered  from  the  32d  verfe,  in  which  we  find  them  fpeak- 
Ing  to  the  jailer  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  houfe.  In  the  next  verfe  we  are  inform.ed  that  the 
jailer  and  all  his  were  baptized.  Where  the>  were  baptized, 
we  are  not  told.  One  thing  however  is  plain,  it  was  not  in 
the  houfe  ;  for  in  Terfe  34  it  is  faid,  When  (i.  e.  after  the 
houCehold  were  baptized)  he  had  brought  them  into  his  houfe, 
he  fet  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with 
all  his  houfe.  From  thefe  obfervations,  the  following  things 
appear : — i.  That  Paul  and  Silas  were  in  the  jailer's  houfe, 
when  they  fpake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  that  were  in  his 
haufe.  2.  That  when  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  was  admin- 
iilered,  they  were  not  in  his  houfe.  5.  I'hat  the  mode  of 
baptiz'ng  then  in  ufe  rendered  it  inconvenient  to  be  per- 
formed in  the  jailer's  houfe.  4.  After  the  ordinance  was 
admlniftered,  they  went  into  the  houfe.  Kow  this  favours 
fprinkling,  I  fee  not. 

*  The  other  fuppofed  example  is  in  i  Cor.  i.  16,  where  Piul 
f^ys,  I  baptized  aUb  the  houfehold  of  Stephanas.  In  the  i6t!i 
chap.  I5:h  verfe,  we  have  a  fiiort  hiftory  of  S^ephanas's  hou^e- 
J^Jd;  it  i^  tiius,  "Ye  k'jow  the  houfehcldof  S^ephana^,that  it 


Serm.  VI.]  i^f  Baptlfnu  6g 

Is  the  firft  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addict .^d  tliem- 
felves  to  the  minillry  of  the  faints  '^  Whether  there  is  here 
found  any  evidence  of  infmt  baptifoi,  you  will  determine  for 
yourfelves. 

6.  Are  the  encouragements  which  are  given  to   parents  in 
behalf  of  their  children,  made  to  their  havir.g  them    baptized  ;■ 
or  are  the  bleffings  connedted  with  their  dedicating  them  to  the 
I^ord,  and  with  their  bringing  them  up  In  his  nurture  and  ad-nio- 
jiit'ion  ?     With  which,  your  Bibles  will  infcrni  you. 

7.  Do  we,  or  do  any,  pretend,  that  there  is  any  certain 
evidence,  from  either  precept  or  example,  for  the  baptizing  of 
Infanta?  Indeed  there  is  none.  Trobably  not  many  fwppcffe 
it. 

8.  Is  there,  as  fome  have  affirmed,  the  fame  evidence  for 
baptizing  infants,  that  there  Is  for  obfcrvmg  the  Lord's  day, 
for  admitting  females  to  comrnuuion,  and  which  there  u  for 
family  prayer  ? 

There  is  a  day  called  the  Lord's  day,  and  religious  things 
were  to  be  obferved  on  it.  Are  there  infants,  who  are  called 
baptized  Infants,  and  are  they  to  be  attended  to  as  fiich  ? 

Feniales  and  males  are  declared  to  be  all  one  in  Chrlil:,  and 
fo  fit  lubjeds  for  the  communion  of  faints.  Are  infants  une- 
quivocally declared  to  be  fit  liibj;<5ls  of  baptlfm  ? 

We  have  examples  of  family  prayer,  and  are  commanded  to 
pray  with  all  prayer.  Are  there  fcripture  examoles  of  infant 
bapt.ifm,  and  are  we  command<;d  to  baptize  all ;  and  fo  are 
Infants  inchided  ? 

9.  Ought  I  to  teach  you  infant  baplnm,  if  our  Lord  Je fas 
Chrift  hath  no  where   dire<5led  me  to  do  thus  ? 

10.  Hath  Jefus  Chrift  fp'^ken  one  word  of  biptifm,  as  being 
fubftituted  for  circumciuon  ?  Hath  he  any  where  commanded 
his  minifters  to  teach  this  fubdiiution  ? 

Thirdly.  Shall  we  go,  and  are  we  under  the  neccffiry  of 
going,  to  the  law  and  covenant  of  clrcumcifion,  to  prove  Infant 
baptifra,  when  boih  this  law  and  •ovenant  have  long  fmce 
waxed  old,  been  repealed,  and  have  periihed  ?  Hcb.  vil.  1 8, 
19,  and  viii.  13. 

But  you  will  afk,  Are  not  the  bieffi.-gs  of  Abraham  come 
on  the  Gentiles  ?  Anj.  Yes.  You  will  then  fay,  rire  not  our 
children  Included  in  the  promife  ?  Anf^-tr.  If  they  be  Chriil's, 
then  are  they  Abraham's  {z^^^  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promife.  Gal.  ill.  29.  Abraham's  children,  after  the  fldh, 
were  not  included  in  the  promile,  as  the  Ped^baptld'S  (^'i  our  day 


04  The  Mock  and  Subjects       []Serm.  Vi. 

would  have  theirs.  But  you  will  fay  again,  Are  not  our  chil- 
dren included  in  the  covenant  ?  In  what  covenant  ?  In  that 
of  circumcifion  ?  Surely  not.  For  though  that  covenant  was 
often  renewed,  yet  it  hath  long  fince  pafled  away.  Is  your 
queftion  this  ?  Are  ihey  not  included  in  that  covenant,  which 
was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  twenty-four  years  previoufiy 
lo  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ?  I  anfwer,  No  man  knoweth, 
nor  can  know,  but  as  your  children  give  evidence,  that  they 
poiTefs  the  Spirit  of  Chrlil.  But  as  I  have  obferved  to  you 
before,  fo  I  fay  again,  even  were  ycur  children  included  in 
this  covenant,  and  faints ;  this  does  not  of  itfelf  give  them 
any  right  to  baptifm,  any  more,  than  Abraham's  oelng  in- 
cluded in  the  fame  covenant  gave  hirn  a  right  to  circumcifion. 
Tliis  covenant  determines  nothing  as  to  the  on^,  or  the  other. 
The  covenant  of  circumcifion  dcLermined  who  were  to  be  cir- 
cumcifed.  So  the  ordinance  or  inftitution  of  Baptifm  deter- 
mines who  are  to  be  baptized.  One  determines  no  more 
who  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  ether,  than  does  the  covenant 
cf  an  everlafting  priefthood  (Numb.  xxv.  13.)  determine 
who  fnall  be  minifters  in  gofpel  days.  In  (hort,  there  is  no 
arguing  from  one  to  the  other  in  this  matter.  They  are  both 
of  them  pofitive  inftitutions,  and  nothing  can  be  known  of 
either,  but  what  is  revealed  in  its  particular  inftitution. 

While  viewiifg  this  fubjedl,  you  will  inquire,  What  will  be- 
come of  our  children  r  1  anfwer,  God  only  knoweth.  You 
may  rejoin  ;  But  what  fliall  we  do  for  them  ?  Anf.  Dedicate 
them  to  God,  and,  like  faithful  Chriftians,  bring  them  up  for 
him. 

Fourthly.  We  will  now  attend  to  fome  legitimate  confe- 
quences  which  follow,  upon  fuppofition  that  the  fubjeds  of  bap- 
tifm are  to  be  determined  from   the  fubjedls  of  circumcifion. 

1.  One  confequence  is,  every  man  who  is  converted  to  the 
Chriftian  religion  is  to  be  baptized,  and  all  his  houfehold, 
though  he  may  have  three  hundred  and  feventeen  training  fol- 
diers  born  in  his  own  houfe.  Not  only  are  thsfe  foldiers  to  be 
baptized,  but  their  wives,  children,  and  all  other  fervants,  who 
belong  to  this  great  man's  houfe.  A  thoufand  infidels  are  to 
be  baptized,  becaufe  one  great  man,  their  mafter,  is  chriftian 
ized. 

2.  Thefe  foldiers,  with  their  wives,  children  and  fervants, 
are  all  to  be  confidered  and  treated  as  church  members,  or  as 
being  in  covenant.  I  confefs  this  does  not  look  to  me  gofpel- 
like. 


Serm.  VI.]  of  Baptifm.  <^^ 

3.  Another  confeqaence  is,  the  adults  among  ihefe,  and 
among  all  others,  who  are  baptized,  are  not  only  to  be  admit- 
ted to  tlie  communion,  but  required  to  come.  I  afk,  Could 
fuch  a  communion  be  called  the  communion  of  faints  ?— one 
great  and  good  man,  with  hundreds  of  unconverted  fervanls  ! 

4.  All  who  have  been  baptized,  and  have,  not,  for  mifde- 
meanor,  been  expelled  the  church,  have  a  right  to  baptifm  for 
iheir  children ;  and  no  man  may  f  :)rbid  them. 

5/  Another  confequence  if,  notwiihilanding  ChriO:  faith, 
My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  woild  ;  yet  the  regulations  v.'ere 
fuch,  efpecially  the  mean  of  admiiTion  into  it,  as  ftrongly,  and 
of  infallible  confeqaence,  tended  to  make  ic  of  this  world, 
and  that  abundantly  fo. 

6.  Another  confequence  is,  many  leained  and  pious  min- 
iilers  of  New-England  are  inconfiftent  with  themfelves,  in 
requiring  of  perfons  baptizcii  in  infancy  a  profeffion  of  experi- 
mental religion,  as  a  term  of  communion.  It  was  not  fo  done 
in  Ifrael. 

7.  Another  confequence  is,  many  of  ihe  fame  pious  and 
learned  minifters  are  very  inconfiflent  with  themfelves,  in  refu- 
fmg  bapiifm  to  the  children  of  fuch  as  are,  by  their  baptifm, 
in  regular  church  memberlhip,  or  in  covenant,  as  it  is  termed. 

I  have  taken,  as  you  obferve,  for  granted,  what  I  do  uot 
believe  to  be  true,  that  fprinkling,  or  a  very  partial  waflrngj  !■» 
baptifm. 

Lajllj,  Another  confequence  is,  it  doth,  fo  far  as  it  liata  its 
perfedt  tuork,  deftroy  the  very  idea  of  the  gofpel  church,  coA- 
tradidl  the  prophets,  and  make  Paul  and  others  fpeak  not 
the  truth,  and  it  throv/s  us  back  to  the  fcate  of  the  Jewifii 
church. 

Jeremiah,  proph^fying  of  the  gofpel  church,  falch,  chap; 
xxxi.  31  to  34,  Behold  the  days  come,  faith  the  Lord,  that  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael,  and  with 
the  houfe  of  Judah ;  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I 
made  with  your  fathers,  in  the  day  that  1  took  them  by  the 
hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;  but  this  fhali 
be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael, 
After  thofe  days,  faith  the  Lo^d,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their 
inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts ;  and  will  be  their 
God,  and  they  fhall  be  my  people.  And  they  (hall  teach  no 
moie  every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every  man  iiis  brother,  fay* 
ing,  Know  the  Lord,  for  they  fhall  all  know  me,  from  the 
Kafl  of  them,  unto  the  greateft  of  them,  faith  the  Lord. 
V  2 


ere  The  Mode  and  Subjects         [Serm.  VL 

If  this  means  any  thing,  it  certainly  means  that  the  gofpel 
church  (hall  exceed  in  purity  the  Jewifh  church  ;  that  it  (hall, 
at  leaft,  be  compofed  of  profeffing  faints.  Ifaiai}  fays,  chap, 
liv.  13,  All  thy  children  Ihall  be  taught  of  the  Lord.  The 
latter  of  thefe  paffiges,  our  Lord  applies  to  the  gofpel  day, 
f/ohn  vi.  45  :  The  former  is  applied  to  the  gofpel  church  by 
Paul,  Heb.  viii. 

Mofes  fays  in  Deut.  xviif.  15,  19.  The  Lord  thy  God  will 
raife  up  unto  thee  a  Prophet  from  the  midft  of  thee,  of  thy 
brethren,  like  unto  me  ;  unto  him  ye  fliall  hearken.  And  it 
iliall  come  to  pafs,  that  whofoever  will  not  hearken  unto  my 
words,  which  he  fhall  fpeak  in  my  name,  I  will  require  it  of 
him. 

This,  and  much  more,  Peter  applies  to  gofpel  days,  and  to 
the  gofpel  church,  ^^s  in.  22,  to  the  end.  Mofes  truly  faid 
unto  the  fathers,  A  Prophet  Ihall  the  Lord  your  God  raife  up 
unto  you,  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him  Ihall  ye  hear 
in  all  things  whatfoever  he  fhall  fliy  unto  you.  And  it  fhall 
come  to  pafs  that  every  foul  that  will  not  hear  that  Prophet, 
ihall  be  dejiroyedfrom  among  the  people.  Yea,  and  all  the  proph- 
ets from  Samuel,  and  thofe  that  follow  after,  as  many  as  have 
Ipoken,  have  like  wife  foretold  of  thefe  days.  Ye  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  our  fathers,  faying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  feed  (hall 
all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blefied.  Unto  you  firft,  God 
having  raifed  up  his  Sen  Jefus,  fent  him  to  blefs  you  in  turn- 
/••J  away  every  one  of  ^' CM  from  his  iniquities. 

Through  the  New-Teitament,  the  gofpel  church  is,  or  ap- 
pears to  be,  fpoken  of  as  a  fociety,  nation  or  church  of  faints  ; 
and  as  being  greatly  different  from  the  nation  of  the  Jews. 
But  the  fabje(5ls  cf  baptifm  being  determined  by  the  fubjev^s 
of  circumcifion,  brings  the  gofpel  church,  as  to  its  conftituent 
materials,  to  the  fame  condition  with  the  church  under  the  law 
of  carnal  ordinances.  Indeed,  what  is  now,  generally,  called 
the  gofpel  church,  is  Irardly  io  be  diilinguifhed  by  its  members 
from  the  old  Jewifh  church. 

Do  not  thefe  things  look  as  though  the  twelve  hundred  and 
fixty  years  of  Antichrift's  reign  were  not  wholly  part  ?  Is  there 
not,  my  brethren,  fome  defiling  error  at  the  root  of  all  this? 
Can  fuch  ftreams,  as  are  thefe  confequences,  flow  from  a  pure 
fountain  ?  Indeed  many  good  minifters  of  our  land  have  long 
fmce  difcovered  fome  of  thefe  evil  confequences,  and  have  la- 
boured hard  to  rectify  them.     Prefidcnt  Edwards,  and  many 


Serm.  VI.]  of  Baptifm.  61 

odiers,  made  a  noble  ftand  againft  this  flood  of  corruption  ; 
yet  they  diicovered  not  the  fountain,  whence  ihefe  ftreams  flow, 
and  will  flow,  till  it  be  removed.  Putting  or  miilaking  the 
covenant  of  circumciflon,  for  the  covenant  which  was  confirm- 
ed of  God  in  Chrift  to  Abraham,  twenty-four  years  before 
circumcifion  was  known,  and  fubilituting  baptilm  for  circum- 
cificn,  and  determining  the  fubjeds  of  the  one  by  the  fubje<5ls 
of  the  other,  without  any  aulhority  thus  to  do,  have  produced 
all  this  corruption,  deception,  and  world  of  evil.  Would  good 
minifters  be  perluaded  to  lay  the  axe  at  tlie  root  of  the  tree,  as 
John  did,  the  evils  would  be  foon  rectified. 

The  fubjecl,  on  which  we  now  are.  is  of  fuch  liigh  concern- 
ment to  the  church  of  Chril^,  generally,  and  your  corivicT:ion 
of  the  truth  of  ic  being  almoft,  or  quite,  ellsntial  to  our  future 
peace  and  union  together,  I  would  willingly  omit  nothing 
which  might  chafe  away  your  darknef?,  and.  caufe  the  true 
light  to  appear.  I  will,  therefore,  add  here  the  hiftory  of 
infant  baptifm.  Should  we  find  that  infant  baptifm  is  of  m.en, 
as  we  have  already  found  fprinkiing  to  be,  it  is  hoped  that  you 
will  either  give  it  up,  or  pradife  it  as  being  cf  man's  device, 
and  not,  as  Mr.  Dlckinfon  would  have  ir,  as  belonging  to  in- 
fants by  divine  right. 

The  firll  information  which  we  have  of  infant  baptifm  is  a- 
bout  the  middle  of  the  fecond  century  ;  about  which  time  Ire- 
nasus,  in  one  of  his  epiftles,  has  the  following  fentence  :  "  The 
church  received  a  tradition  from  the  apoftles  to  adminiiter  bap- 
tifm to  iitile  children  or  infants.'"*' 

The  next  account  we  have  of  this  m.atter  (if  we  except 
Tertullian,  who  oppofed  the  practice)  i?  given  us  by  Origen, 
In  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  His  words  are, 
**  Little  children  are  baptized  for  the  remiffion  of  fins."  For 
the  remiifion  of  original  fin,  or  pollution  ;  for  of  this  is  he 
fpeaking.  Again  lie  fays,  "  The  church  had  an  order  from 
the  apoflles  to  give  baptifm  to  infants." 

Another  part  of  the  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm  we  have  in  a 
quotation  from  the  deciuonsof  the  famous  C'.^unc:!  at  Carthage 
in  the  year  253.  It  is  this  :  "From  baptifm  and  the  grace  of 
God  nons  ought  to  h^  prohibited  ;  cfpecially  infants  need  cur  help 
and  the  divine  mercy."  We  have  a  farther  account  from 
Auguiline,  who  fiourilhed  about  the  middle  cf  the  fourtJi  cen- 
tury.    His  words  (writing  of  infant  baptifm)  are,  "  Let  sone, 

*  Prcf,  Dickinfon  on  Baptifm. 


G8  The  Mode  and  Subjects        [Serm.  VL 

therefore,  fo  much  as  ivh'ijper  any  other  doflrlne  in  yrjur  ears  : 
This  the  church  hath  always  had,  has  always  held." 

The  next  we  hear  of  infant  baptifm  is,  that  the  pra«51ice  was 
confirmed,  and  {o  put  beyond  difpute,  by  Pope  Innocent  the 
Firft. 

Now  fire  and  fword  were  the  all-conclufive  ars^uments  ufed 
for  the  conviction  and  reformation  of  all  who  refufed  to  prac- 
tife,  or  dared  to  call  in  qaeflion,  infant  baptifm.  We  will  pafs 
over  the  horrid  perfecunons,  which  now  began  to  be,  and  have 
ever  fiact  been  pra<5tifed,  at  intervals,  upon  thofe  who  would 
not  fubmit  to  the  divine  right  of  infants  to  baptifm,  as  confer- 
red on  them  by  the  ghoflly  Popes  of  Rome. 

Luther,  the  famous  German  reformer,  fays,  "  that  infant 
baptifm  was  not  determined  till  Pope  Innocentius ;"  and  Gro- 
tius,  in  his  annotauons  on  Matth.  xix.  fays,  *'  It  was  net  en- 
joined till  the  Council  of  Carthage."* 

We  oughr,  however,  to  trace  the  hiftory  nf  infant  baptifm 
one  ftep  farther,  and  notice  Calvin,  and  a  multitude  fiace,  who 
were  unwilling  to  acknowledge  their  dependence  on  the 
Mother  of  Harlots,  for  their  authority  in  this  matter ;  and  there- 
fore with  great  ingenuity  have  difcovered  infant  baptifm,  as  a 
gofpel  ordinance,  or  the  right  of  infants  to  it,  in  the  law  of 
Mofes.  Indeed  they  have  fjppofed  that  this  doctrine  is  implied 
in  a  number  of  paffages  of  the  New-  redament.  Yet,  I  be- 
lieve, none  who  pracftife  it,  are  willing  to  venture  this  New- 
Tedament  ordinance  upon  New-Teftament  evidence. 

Here  you  fee  that  tradUiGn  is  the  foundation  of  infant  bap- 
tlftn  ;  error^  the  belief  that  haptif.n  ivnfies  away  onginalfni^  the 
nurfe  of  its  tender  age;  the  church  of  Rome,  the  confirmer 
and  fcrong  defender  of  It ;  and  the  long  fince  repealed  cere- 
monial law  of  Mofes  the  evidence  for  it.  You  fee,  the  Introduc- 
tion of  infant  baptifm  was  tradition.  Upon  tliis  foundation 
hath  it  manifellly  reded  ever  fmce.  All  the  ingenious  argu- 
n^ents  ol  learned  and  pious  men,  can,  in  fa<fl,  add  no  flrength 
to  its  firft  foundation.  The  firft  we  hear  of  it  is,  it  was  placed 
upon  tradition,  and  there  it  hath  refted,  or  been  ftanding  un- 
eafily,  ever  fmce. 

BefiJes,  this  traSulon,  as  well  as  the  practice  which  follow- 
ed, is  doubtlefs  the  oiFipring  of  error,  and  man's  invention. 
At  beft  we  have  but  one  witnefs  for  it,  in  the  mouth  cf  whom 
nothing  can  be  eftablifhed.  Origen  fays,  "  The  church  had 
an  grdcr  from  the  Apoftles."  Still  we  have  but  one  wiigefs: 
*  Ancient  £>ialogue  Revifed. 


Serm.  VII. ]  of  Baptif?n.  69 

Moreover,  the  very  expreilions  of  the  Pedobaptifts  ihow  that 
they  v.tre  from  the  beginning  oppofed  by  the  Bapiifts.  Ire- 
nscus  fays,  **  We  have  a  tradition."  Origen  fays,  "  We  have 
an  order."  The  Council  cf  Carthage  fay,  "  Infants  ought 
not  to  be  prohibited  from  baptifm."  Auguftine  faith,  "  Let 
none  fo  much  as  whifper  any  other  dodtrine  in  your  ears." — 
Does  not  every  fyllable  indicate  the  difpute  which  the  Baptifts 
had  with  the  inventers  and  lupporters  of  this  anti- evangelical 
principle  and  practice  ? 

It  is  worthy  of  a  moment's  confideration,  that  not  one  of 
the  moft  ancient  fathers  makes  the  leaft  pretenfion  that  infant 
baptifm  is  fupported  by  fo  much  as  one  palTage  in  either  the 
Oid-Teftament,  or  the  New ;  and  tliey  mention  no  authority 
buc  tradition y  and  an  order  from  the  Apoftles,  &:c.  wiiich,  at 
beft,  are  very  uncertain  things. 

Whoever  can  fix  their  faith,  continue  their  practice,  and 
venture  their  refponfibility  on  fuch  a  traditionary  foundation, 
I  cannot.  Upon  this  foundation  for  our  practice,  have  both 
we  and  our  fathers  ventured  to  oppofe  the  Baptifts,  with  great- 
er  or  iefs  degrees  of  virulence ;  whilft,  by  our  tradition,  we 
have  greatly  injured  the  ordinance  of  Chrift,  if  not,  in  this 
inftance,  made  void  the  law  of  God. 

In  fine  :  Was  not  infant  baptifm  firft  Introduced  to  efcape 
the  offence  of  the  crofs  ?  Is  it  not,  with  many,  unknowingly 
continued  for  the  fame  end  ?  It  bringeth  the  church  to  its 
former  ftate  as  under  the  law.  If  I  yet  preach  circumctfion^ 
why  do  I  yet  fuffer  perfecution  ?  Then  is  the  offence  of  the 
crofs  ceafed,  CaL  v.  1 1. 


SERMON    VII. 

MATTHEW  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  y£i  therefore^  and  teach  all  nations y  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Souy  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofl ;  teaching 
ihem  to  obferve  all  things  luhaifocveti  I  have  commanded  you  : 
and,  loy  I  am  auith  you  alivay^  even  unto'  the  end  of  the 
'world.      Amen, 


I 


HAVE  already  fet  before  you  the  principal  part  of  what 
I  intended  under  the  two  firft  propofitions  in  my  text* 


What  remains  is  to  bring  forward — 


70  The  S^ode  a'nd  Si/l?JeCls       [Serm.  VIL 

III.  Chrlii's  command  to  all  bis  miniftering  fervants  to 
teacli  all  nations,  or  thoie  who  fiioiild  be  difcipkd  among  them, 
to  obferve  all  things  whatfoever  he  had  commanded  them. 
And  then — 

Lajlly,  His  comforting  and  ftrengthening  promife,  which 
is,  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world. 

To  thefe  propi.fitions,  your  ferious,  Chriflian  attention  is 
requefted.     The  firft  is — 

III.  Chrift's  command  to  the  minifters  of  his  gofpel  to 
teach  all  nations,  or  thofe  who  flionld  be  dif:ipled  among  them, 
to  obferve  all  things   whatlbever  he  had  commanded  them. 

Here  you  f;e  the  extenfivenefs  of  my  orders  received,  and 
which  I  muft  carefully  obferve,  would  I  be  obedient  unto  the- 
Heavenly  Teacher,   who  came  from  God. 

Chrift  J-^fus,  v/hen  perfonally  on  earth,  gave  a  new  edition  of 
his  own  and  his  Father's  mind  and  will.  In  this  new  edition, 
he  abrogated  or  left  out,  many  ceremonies  of  the  old,  as  being 
no  longer  ufeful.  Under  the  old  edition,  the  church  was  in 
its  childhood,  and  therefore  under  fuch  tutors  and  governors 
as  were  not  needed  in  her  riper  years.  In  this  new  edition, 
Chriil  hath  pointed  out  what  is  to  be  preferved  of  the  old. 
The  fum  of  the  moral  law  and  the  prophets,  were  to  continue 
in  force.  Thefe  are,  indeed,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  bind- 
ing on  accountable  creatures.  But  when  Chrift,  the  anointed 
and  expefted  Mefliah,  was  come,  then  all  thofe  rites,  facrifices 
and  typica!  inftitutions  of  the  ceremonial  law,  which  were, 
together,  as  a  fchool  maPter  to  lead  the  obferver  to  Chrift,  were 
difannulled,  being  no  longer  of  ufe. 

You  fee  what  minifters  have  authority  to  teach  for  both  doe- 
trine  and  pradice.  It  is  what  Chrift  hath  commanded  them, 
and  ncthing  which  is  contrary  from  it. 

In  time  paft  I  have  taught  you  the  precepts  of  Chrift,  fome- 
w^hat  largely.  As  1  have  taught  them,  fo  you  have,  as  is  be- 
lieved, received  them  to  the  faving  of  your  fouls.  The  ordi- 
nance of  the  fupper  I  have  taught  in  its  fimpliclty,  and  fo  have 
)cu  received  it.  V'ou  have  alfo  been  informed,  that  Jefus 
Chrift  appointe'i  bap-.ifm,  as  an  ordinance  to  be  obferved  in  his 
cliUTch.  But  what  that  ordinance  was,  and  who  were  the  fub- 
jedts  of  it,  you  have  not  been  particularly  told,  till  of  late. 
Nor  had  t,  till  a  ftiort  time  fince,  a  clear  underftanding  of 
either.  I,  no  doubt,  ought  to  have  known  them  before  ;  but 
till  I  did,  I  could  not  teach  them  to  you.     When   I  came  \s^ 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Bapi'ifnu  «7i 

the  knowledge  of  them,  it  was  no  longer  in  iry  power  to  be 
failhlul  to  Chrift,  and  refufe  to  teach  them.  In  the  fimplicity 
of  my  heart  have  I  taught  you  what  is  baptifm,  and  who  are 
to  be  baptized. 

Whether  thefe  things  be,  or  be  not,  agreeable  to  my  fcrmer 
notions  of  them,  is  nothing  to  the  point.  One  thing  I  am 
fettled  in,  I  have,  of  late,  taught  them  to  you,  as  Chrift  hath 
commanded  me. 

Not  only  was  it  my  duty  to  teach  yon  thefe  things,  but  I  am 
commanded  to  teacli  you  to  obfe'-ve  them  :  For  then  are  you 
ehrift's  difciples,  when  you  do  all  things  whatfoever  he  halh 
commanded  you. 

To  obferve  thefe  things,  is  like  obedient  children  to  receive 
inilrudion,  and  then  to  fearch  the  fcriptures,  that  you  may  kncxs- 
how  thefe  things  are.     It  belongs  to  me  to  teach  you — 

1.  To  obferve  thefe  things  till  you  underftand  them.  And 
then — 

2.  To  obferve    them  in  your  pra<rt'ce. 

1 .  Would  you  walk  in  all  the  ftatutes  and  ordinances  of  the 
Lord  blamelefs,  you  muft  obferve  thefe  things  till  you  under- 
hand them. 

You  and  I  have  been  unreafonably  prejudiced  againft  light 
and  truth  in  thefe  matters.  If  I  do  not  misjudge,  the  Lord 
hath,  in  anfwer  to  prayer,  afforded  me  the  needed  light  and 
knowledge  upon  the  fubjed.  It  was  not  in  a  day,  nor  in  a 
month,  after  my  prejudices  received  a  fhock,  and  my  mind 
partial  conviction,  that  I  obtained  fatisfadion.  Nor  can  I 
expe(5l  that  you  will,  all  of  you,  pofTefs  fuch  a  ready  mind,  as  to 
give  up  your  long,  and  almoft  inveterate  prejudices,  and  re- 
ceive the  light  at  once.  It  is  by  little  and  little,  that  anti- 
cliriflian  errors  mull  be  deftroyed  from  the  chui  ch,  and  from 
your  hearts,  as  well  as  from  mine. 

You  may  expe.5t  to  find  me  ready,  at  any  time,  and  at  a!l 
times,  to  afford  you  every  inftrudlion,  and  to  arf^^er  any  ob- 
je<ftion  which  may  occur  to  your  candid  minds.  You  fhculd 
have  your  Bibles  always  nigh  you,  and  pcffefs  continually  a 
prayerful,  teachable  fpirit.  Be  detei mined  to  hearken  to  none 
"but  Chrift,  and  to  be  obedient  to  all  his  commands. 

Be  ca^e^ul  to  avoid  all  bitternefs  and  evil  fpeak'ng.  Wif- 
dom  will  not  dwell  vith  ftrife  ;  nor  will  tlie  wrath  of  mac 
work  the  righteoufnefs  of  God. 

2.  Ic  belongs  to  xvit  to  teach  you  to  obferve  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm,  and  tlie  pioper  fuKjccl^^,  in   y-DMr  pra^ft'ce.     You  rruS^ 


72  The  Mode  and  SubjeHs       [Serm.  VII. 

underftand  thefe  things  before  you  can  acceptably  pra<5Hfe 
them.  Some  of  you,  no  doubt,  fufficiently  underftand  them  to 
proceed  to  pradice.  But  1  have  not  thought  it  duty  to  haften 
your  pradlice,  or  to  lead  you  by  example,  left  the  minds  of 
others  fliould  be  injured.  It  is  a  time  to  weaken  prejudices, 
and  not  to  increafe  them.  Wifdom  dwells  with  prudence.  Ma- 
ny of  your  minds,  as  well  as  mine,  are,  with  pleafing  expedtation, 
looking  forward  to  the  time,  when  we  may,  with  nighly  or 
quite  all  our  brethren  with  us,  keep  all  the  ordinances  of  the 
gcfpel,  as  Chrift   hath  commanded  us. 

When  you  (hall  underftand  thefe  things,  happy  will  you  be 
if  you  pra(ftife  them  ;  for  all  gofpel  obedience  gives  pleafure 
in  the  pradice. 

As  Mofes  had  much  to  do  in  Egypt,  before  God  faid  unto 
him,  *  Speak  unto  the  people  that  they  go  forward,'  fo,  my 
brethren,  I  may  have  much  to  do  before  things  (hall  be  in  read- 
intfs,  and  before  the  Lord  (hall  bid  me  fpeak,  faying  unto  you. 
Go  FORJFARD.  But,  if  the  Lord  will,  I  would  live  to  fee  that 
day. 

After  Ifrael  weni  forward,  and  were  baptized  under  Mofes 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  fea,  they  had  a  tedious  wildernefs  to 
pafs  ;  fo  it  may  be  with  us.  But,  fhould  we  obferve  the  pillar 
of  cloud  and  of  nre,  we  fhall  come  to  the  promifed  land  ;  and 
it  may  be,  v/ith  much  fafety  and  fpeed,  fliould  we  hearken  to 
the  good  counfel  of  Jofnua. 

You  know,  my  brethren,  as  it  is  my  duty  to  teach  you  to 
obferve  all  things  whatfoever  Chrift  hath  commanded  me,  io 
ic  is  your  duty  to  receive  inftrudion,  and  be  obedient.  Your 
obedience  is  not  to  be  rendered  to  me,  but  to  Jefus  Chrift,  and 
to  the  word  of  his  teftimony. 

It  will  doubtlefs  occur  to  your  minds,  Whom  fliall  we  hear  ? 
One  minifter  teaches  us  one  thing,  and  another  teaches  differ- 
ently. You  are  to  hear  no  man  any  farther  than  he  fhall  teach 
you  as  the  man  Chrift  Jefus  hath  commanded  him.  Minlfters 
have  no  authority,  any  farther  than  they  receive  it  from  him.  He 
hath  given  them  no  power  to  teach,  but  what  he  hath  com- 
manded. When  they  tranfcribe  out  of  the  old  into  the  new  edi- 
tion of  God's  word  and  will,  and  tell  us  that  the  rite  and  cov- 
enant of  circumcifion  are  to  explain  to  us  the  obferv;irce  of 
a  New-Tcftament  ordinance,  we  are  not  obliged  to  believe  them, 
unlefs  they  point  us  to  the  place  where  Chrift  hath  fo  command- 
ed.  You  are  to  obey  them  who  have  the  rule  over  you.  But 
even  Paul  was  not  to  be  followed  any  farther  than  he  followed 


Serm.  VH.}  of  Baptifnu  73 

Chrid.  So  it  ou.o^ht  to  be  with  you,  in  hearkening  to  what  your 
teachers  lay.  Minifters  are  but  men,  and  they  have  proved 
themfelves  to  be  fo,  by  changing  the  ordinance  of  baptilrn  intd 
quite  a  different  tiling,  and  by  adminiflering  their  new  rite  to 
fubje(fls  to  whom  Jefus  Chrift  never  commanded  it.  It  furely 
is  a  furptifing  thing,  and  not  to  be  accounted  for,  but  from  the 
relics  of  human  depravity,  that  fo  many  good  men  fhould, 
unknowingly,  do  and  teach  things  which  are  quite  afide  from 
what  Chritl  hath  commanded  them. 

It  is  too  late  for  you,  my  hearers,  to  cloak  yourfelves  under 
what  great  and  good  men  have  faid  ;  for  the  truth  of  the  Lord 
hath  already  been  told  you.  Had  I  not  come  and  fpoken  to 
you  this  word  of  Chrift,  you  would  not  have  had  fm ;  but 
now  have  you  no  cloak  for  difobedience. 
We  now  come— 

Lajziy^  To  confider  Chrift's  comforting  and  ftrengihening 
promife  to  his  miniftering  fervants :  which  is,  And,  To,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even   unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

Chrift  Jefus  hath  been  with  his  miniflers  j  and  he  will  be — 

1.  In  preparing  them  for  their  office.  He  was  perfon 
t^lly  with  his  firft  gofpel  heralds,  for  the  fpace  of  ihree  years,  oi 
more  ;  after  this  he  left  them  for  a  fhort  time  ;  in  this  fhori 
interval  they  paiTed  a  fevere  trial.  He  was  with  them  again, 
at  times,  for  forty  days.  Soon  after  this  he  fent  his  Spirit 
upon  them,  ajid  filled  them  with  it  to  a  remarkable  degree. 
Then  they  were  prepared  for  their  cffire.  They  fpeedlly  filled 
it  remarkably,  and  the  effect  was  wonderful.  Three  thoufand 
were  converted  in  a  day. 

Chrift  is  as  really,  though  not  fo  apparently,  with  all  his  gof- 
pel meiTengers,  in  preparing  them  to  go  forth  into  his  harveft, 
Thofe,  who  have  not  Chrift  with  them,  to  prepare  them  for  then- 
office,  are  but  as  wolves  in  fneep's  clothing,  when  they  go  forth 
into  the  mini  ft  ry.  They  preach  iox  jilthy  lucre^  and  frequently 
have  their  reward.  It  is  too  often  the  cafe,  that  thofe,  whom 
Chrift  hath  prepared,  are  obli^ared  to  go  into  the  field,  or  make 
tents  for  their  fupport,  whilft  fuch  as  run,  not  being  fent,  fwim 
in  luxury. 

2.  J?ras  Chrift  will  be  with  his  minifters  in  bringing  divine 
tilings  to  tlieir  remembrance. 

It  is  the  Lord's  Spirit  which  caufcth  divine  truth  to  occur  to 
'the  minds  of  his  fervants.  Truths,  which  have  been  forgotten 
for  months,  and  it  may  be  for  years,  or  paffages  which  before 
wer^  underftood,  may  be,  and  not  unfrequently  are,  frcfli  aqd 

G 


74  The  Mode  and  Subjeas         [Serm.  'YIL 

|)lain  in  the  minds  of  his  fervants,  for  their  coir.fort,  or  for  the 
comfort  and  inftrud:ion  of  others,  or  for  the  comfort  and  ed- 
ification cf  both. 

3.  Chrift  v.ill  be  with  his  minlfters  in  affording  them  wif- 
dom,  fortitude,  and  faithfulnefs. 

Ihe  entrance  of  his  word  giveth  light.  He  makcth  h'ght 
their  paths,  and  ordereth  all  their  fteps.  He  makelh  their  feet 
like  hinds'  feet,  and  caufeih  them  to  be  fwifter  than  the  eagle, 
ftronger  than  lions,  wife  as  ferpents,  and  harmlefs  as  doves, 
With  what  wifdom  did  Siephen  fpeak  !  With  what  fortitude 
did  Peter,  Pau\  and  a  thoufand  others,  addrefs  their  p.udito- 
ries !  With  whiit  wifdom  hath  he  made  his  fervants  to  fpeak  ! 
Wirh  what  fortitude  to  bear,  with  what  faiihfulnefs  to  endure, 
for  his  name's  fake  i  How  remarkably  hath  it  been  thus,  in 
times  of  perfeculion  !  And  when  will  you  find  a  time,  when 
they  that  are  barn  after  the  flefh  do  nr>t  perfecute  thofe  who 
are  born  after  the  Spirit !  How  often  is  it  the  cafe,  when  min- 
ifters,  like  Paul,  wax  bold,  and  teftify  that  Jefus  is  the  Chrif}, 
and  what  are  his  words  and  inflitutions,  that  they  are  perfecu- 
ted,  openly  or  more  fecretly  ! 

4.  Chrift  is  and  will  be  with  his  miniilering  fervants  v/hilft 
they  are  vcDroached  and  fuffering  for  his  namiC  and  truth's 
fake. 

He  fays  to  them  all,  \^  ihe  world  hate  ycu,  ye  know  that  it  ha- 
ted me  before  it  l^ated  you.  When  Chrift's  miriilters  are  reviled 
and  fuffer  for  hii  fake,  his  truth  and  Spirit  bear  their  fpirits 
up.  He  gives  them  to  believe  and  know,  that  though  they 
weep  new,  they  Oiall  fof-n  rej.  ice  ;  that  their  light  aflli(5lions, 
which  are  but  for  a  moment,  are  piepaiing  them  for  and  work- 
ing out  for  them,  a  far  more  exceeding  and  an  eternal  weight 
of  glory. 

5.  Chrift  Jefns  will  be  with  his  faithful  minifteis  in  giving 
them  to  fee  their  d' fire  upon  his  enemies. 

This  appears  to  be  particularly  implied  in  my  text.  1  hey 
are  commanded  to  go  and  difciple  all  nations.  Their  dtfire 
is  to  fee  difciples  mutiplie.r?.  They  go  foitl;,  Chrift  gees  forth 
with  them.  Many  of  C))rift's  enemies  fubmit  to  his  yoke, 
which  is  eafy,  and  to  his  burden,  which  is  light.  In  this  are 
thev  gra^fieo,  and  their  defire  on  them  is  accompliftied. 

6  ^  CI  rift  is  with  his  minJfters  in  explaining  and  defending 
his  tru'h. 

How  did  Peter,  Paul  and  others,  in  the  firft  ages  of  Chrif- 
tsanity,  explain  and  vindicate  the  truth,  to  the  confcundii.g  of 


Serm.  VII.]  cf  Laptifm»  7 J 

both  Jevvs  and  Gep.tlles  I  Whenever,  in  ag?3  fmce,  he  hath 
fpoken  the  word,  great  hith  been  the  comp.ir.v,  or  force,  of 
thofe  who  have  pifililhed,  explained  and  defended  it.  M:irtia 
Luther  J ^hn  Calvin,  and  a  num!:)i:r  m  )re  in  the  rcform.iticn, 
were  like  fi.irn-'Sr.'f  Fire:  nothing  could  ttop  ihtmfrompubliihing, 
explaining  and  defending  the  truths  of  the  Saviour,  lor  he  was 
with  th^m. 

Yju  will  allc,  How  is  It  that  Chriil  is  wiih  his  minillers. 
when  chcy  contradict  one  the  other,  an  i  thenrdelves  too  ? 
jinfvjir.  It  is  not  faid,  that  Chrift  is  with  his  niiniilcrs  in  ex- 
plaining and  defending  error.  Error  is  huTian ;  truth  is 
divine.  When  mi:;iRers  undertake  to  fupport  error,  they  go 
widiout  ChriiVs  biefnng  and  prefence  in  this  their  labour. 
Hence  it  is  that  ihey  are  ^o  contradivflory  and  inccniillenc ;  and 
are  obliged  to  wreft  the  fcriptures  from  Lheir  plain  and  eaiy  fenfe, 
to  fupport  a  bel  ved  prejudice  But  when  they  t.^ke  up  for 
truth,  plain  fc-ipture  fuppcris  t>»:m,  and  they  have  plain  and 
pleafanJ  work,  :ind  their  fabj^clsfapported  '^-ith  eafe,as  you  have 
feen  whdil  atiending  to  the   feverai  truths  in  my  text. 

Befides,  it  may  be  the  cafe,  that  fome  very  good  mtn  may 
mix  truth  and  enor,  the  cominanus  of  God  and  their  o  ''n  tradi- 
tions, together;  and,  whilit  pra(ft)fing  accordingly,  they  mz.j 
enjoy  a  comfortable  frame  of  mind,  and  hence  conduce  that 
their  beloved  on  pound  is  a^i  fronfi  heaven.  This  may  be  il- 
luilraied  by  the  following  example.  Mr.  S.  finis  it  to  be  a 
truth,  that  hib  i.^fant  wfF.pring,  as  well  as  eve  y  thing  elfe, 
fhouM  be  devoutly  given  to  God.  He  hath  received  and  Ji  Ide 
a  tradition  from  the  fadiers,  that  hii  i?ifarits  Ih-'uld  be  bapt  zed. 
He  pubUckly  gives  them  to  the  Lord,  and  f  leiTir  ly  prom'fes 
t.i  initruct  them  in  die  way  of  truth  and  duty.  He,  at  the 
fame  time  hath  the  ordinance  of  baptifn  ad:nini:icred  to  them,^ 
or  adminifters  it  himfeif.  During  the  whole  traniafti'n  he  pof- 
feffes  much  comfort  in  his  min.i  His  confequence  is,  the 
whole  matter  is  according  to  truths  j'i;t  as  God  won'.'  have  it. 
Is  not  this  going  a  little  too  much  by  fenfe,  and  r.T  quite  e- 
nough  by  fcripture  r  D  3es  it  not  contain  2^Jpice  of  en.  .uliafm? 
WouiJ  Lo^  the  good  man  lave  had  the  fame  mental  la-iofaction, 
had  he  p-^ffiiTed  the  fame  fpiri^ua'ity,  and  yet  had  omitted  that 
part  which  is  enjoined  by  traiition  only  ? 

LcifHy  :  Thi  grea:  Captain  of  Salvation  is  with  his  mini{^ 
ters,  to  teach,  lead  and  comfort  them,  in  all  their  trials,  in  all 
their  ftraits.  Whofoever  will  leave  them,  he  will  not.  Though 
fee,  the  Great  High  Prieft  of  our  profeTion,  when  fuffering  for 


76  The  Mode  and  Subjeas        [Serm.  VII. 

his  people's  fin^  was  left  alone—all  forfook  him  ;  yet,  when- 
ever  his  friends  are  affliaed,  he  kindly  c^lls,  faying,  Lo,  I  am 
^Mth  you.  This  harh  been  the  ftay  of  good  men  in  all  ages,  in 
all  circumftances.  Thofe  who  have  wandered  about  in  Iheepfkins 
and  goat-fKins,  who  have  been  aiflided.  tormented,  of  whom 
the  world  was  not  worthy,  have  found  their  refuge  here.  'J'here 
is  n-thing  like  this  to  fupport  the  feeble,  diftreffed  foul.  When 
godly  miniiters  have  been  obliged  to  leave  their  people,  yes, 
and  their  families,  and  fometimes  their  native  country,  for  the 
truth's  fake,  this  hath  fuftamed  them — Chrifl  was  with  them. 
Trefideiit  Edwards,  for  a  noble, attempt  at  partial  reformation, 
was  conltrained  to  fl?e  his  beloved  charge  ;  but  Chrift  was,  no 
doubt,  with  him.  Should  I,  for  laying  the  axe  at  the  root  of  the. 
tree,  be  obliged  to  leave  you,  though,  for  the  prefent  I  fe« 
Eo  particular  reafon  to  apprehend  fuch  an  event,  yec  I  truft 
Vhis  will  be  my  hiding  place— Jefus,  who  will  be  with  me*. 

APPLICATION. 

FROM  what  hath  been  faid  in  the  preceding  difcourfcs,  it 
appears — 

1.  That  the  two  fides  of  the  controverfy  between  the  Bap- 
tifts  and  the  Pedobaptifts  ftand  thus. 

Before  I  ftate  the  two  fides  of  the  controverfy,  it  is  but  rea- 
fcnable  that  I  define  thrfe  whom  it  refpeds.  By  the  Baptifts, 
on  one  fide,  1  mean  the  regular  Calviniftic  Bapdfts.  By  the 
Fedobaptifis  on  the  otlier,  I  now  intend  the  Calviniftic  Congre- 
gationaliils  among  them.  I  give  this  definition,  that  I  may  be 
clearly  underftood. 

You  fee  both  fides  are  Calvinifts,  that  is,  they  a:Te  agreed  in 
what  are  ftylcd  the  dodlrines  of  grace.  They  are  both  of  the 
congregational  order,  as  it  refpedls  the  governra«nt  of  the 
ehurches. 

Now  for  the  controverfy— and  it  is  this  :  The  Baptifts  hold 
immerfion  only  to  be  baptifni.  The  Pedobaptifts  hold  that 
fprinkling  may  be  fubftituted  for  immerfion,  and  may  anfwer 
juli  as  well. 

The  Baptifts  hold  that  the  fcriptures  know  nothing  of  a  Chrif- 
tian  ordinance  of  baptifm  for  unbelievers  and  infidels.  The 
Pedobaptifts  hold  tliat,  if  a  great  man,  who  hath  a  thoafand 
faves,  fticuld  become  a  difciple,  then  all  his  houfehold  are  to 
l^e  counted  difciples,  and  are  to  be  baptized. 

The  Baptifts  hold  that  the  church  of  the  Ncw-Teftament  re 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Bapiifm,  7T 

conipofedofvirible  or  profefT^d  fiints.  The  confiaent  Pedo- 
baptifts  hold,  that  this  j:;reit  man,  his  thoufand  flives,  together 
with  his  wife  and  children,  all  belong  to  the  gofpel  church, 
though  he  only  be  a  believer  in  Chrift. 

The  Bapiifts  hold  that  none  have  a  right  to  pirtake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  but  thofe  who  are  his  friends.  The  confiftent 
Pedobaptifts  hold,  that  all  the  adults  in  this  great  man's  houfe- 
hold,  if'they  be  not  guilty  of  grofs  immorality,  have  a  right 
to  come. 

The  Eaptiils  plead  Ne-v-Teflament  authority  for  the  defence 
of  their  principles  and  pradice,  where  ihey  differ  from  their 
brethren  of  ihe  Pedobaptills.  The  Fed  .'baptifts  in  fupport  of 
their  fentiments  plead  convenience,  and  the  covenant  and  rite  of 
circumcifion,  which  were  decaying,  waxing  old,  and  ready  to 
vaniih  away,  more  than  j  yco  years  ago. 

The  Baptifls  bring  nighiy  threcfcore  texts  of  fcripture,  which 
are  plainly  and  fully  to  their  point  in  favour  of  immerfion. 
The  Pedobiiplilts  mention  three  or  four  texts,  which,  at  mcfl-, 
are  but  very  doubtfully  in  their  favour  ;  and,  v.hen  righdy  un» 
derftood,  r/ippear  fully  againfl  them. 

What  advantage,  my  brethren,  have  the  Pedobaptifls  over  the- 
Biptlfts  ?  And  with  what  crime  or  error,  in  this  matter  do  they 
(land  convicted  ? 

2.  It  appears  that  gofpel  miniuers  have  no  authority  to 
teach  Cbriilians,  that  their  children  and  fervants  (hould  be  bap- 
tized, becaufe  Abraham's  were  circumcifed. 

Chriil  hath  no  where  commanded  them  to  teach  thus. 
Ghrift  hath  no  where  commanded  them  to  teach  infant  baptifm. 
■At  all,  or  baptifm  upon  the  faith  of  a-T'^ther ;  much  lefs,  that 
they  are  to  be  baptized  becaufe  Abraham's  were  circumcifed. 

3.  It  appears,  that  many  of  the  pious  and  learned  clergy  of 
New-England  have  made  fome  noble  and  promifiag  advances, 
towards  truth  in  this  matter  ;  yet  in  this  they  are  inconfiftsnt 
with  themfelves. 

i'hey  will  receive  none  to  the  communion  but  fuch  as  pro- 
fefs  faith  in  cur  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  as  well  as  repentance  for  fm  i 
and  they  will  adminifier  baptifm  to  the  children  of  no  ether. 
Here,  in  two  inftance.^  they  refufe  to  follow  the  law  of  circum- 
cifion. One,  in  refufmg  to  admit  to  the  fupper,  impenitent, 
though  civil,  baptized  perfons  ;  the  other,  in  not  admitting  to 
baptifm  the  children  of  all  thofe  who  have  been  baptized.  This 
is  confluent  with  truth  fo  far  as  it  goQz ;  but  inconfillent  wit;.t 
G  2 


78  The  Mode  and  Subjecls       [Serm.  VIL 

the  notion  that  the  fubjeifls  of  baptlfm  are  to  be  determined 
from  the  fiibje<5ls  of  circumcifion. 

Thcfe  good  men,  fo  lon^  as  they  pofTefs  their  prefent  light, 
muft  come  over  to  the  true  Baptift  ground,  or  fubmit  to  the 
imputation  of  inconfidency.  I  wifh  them  to  come  over.  For 
myielf,  I  expedl  to,  though  ray  carnal  nature  hates  the  name  of 
a  Baptiil  as  much  as  theirs  does.  But  my  better  judgment 
tells  me,  that  the  Baptifts  are  on  the  gofpel  ground. 

4.  It  is  a  marter  of  lamentation,  that  pious  and  learned  min- 
ifters  have  not  a  little  more  felf  denial ;  then  they  might  be  con- 
fiHent  'A'iih  themfelves,  and  with  truth  too.  Could  I  be  with 
^em,  and  afk  them  this  plain  queftion.  Do  you  not  find  a  little 
backwardnefs  from  fearching  critically  into  the  primitive  mean- 
ing  and  pradice  of  baptifm  ?  I  fear  they  would  anfwer  with 
fome  relu(5tance. 

To  me,  I  confefs,  it  appears  an  hard  cafe,  that  the  Baptifts 
ftiould  fuffer  fo  much  reproach,  merely  on  account  of  their  fea- 
timents,  when  many  of  our  beft  old  divines  have  given  them  the 
ground,  and  confeffed  that  their  fentiments,  as  to  the  mode, 
are  from  heaven,  and  ours  from  convenience.  Our  oppofitiot* 
to  them,  on  account  of  the  fubje^s,  appears  but  little  belter, 
being  but  poorly  fupported  by  fcripture  :  they  having  tlie  plain 
•word,  and  full  current  of  all  the  prophets  from  Mjfes  to  Mala- 
chi,  fo  far  as  they  have  fpoken  of  the  gofpel  church,  together 
with  the  Ncw-Teftament  in  their  favour  ;  whilft  for  us,  in  this 
particular,  nothing  better  can  be  alleged  than  the  antiquated 
rite  of  circumxifion.  If  the  Baptifts  be  right,  why  not  join 
ihem,  and  fuffer  fmall  inconveniences  ?  If  wrong,  why  not 
prove  them  fo  ?  It  is  pitiful  that  great  and  good  men  ihould  be 
dallying  wiih  inconclnfive  arguments,  when  the  time  is  long 
fmce  come,  that  the  high'zjay  of  hoHnefs  fhould  be  io  plain,  that 
nvayjar'ing  men,  though  fools,  fnculd  not  err  therein. 

5.  We  fee  why  good  men  have  been  fo  divided  among  them- 
felves,  as  to  infar  t  bapiifm. 

The  reafon  is,  they  go  without  Chrift  in  this  matter.  He  is 
not  divided. 

Some  baptize  all.  Others  will  baptize  only  the  children  in 
the  houfeholds  of  ^"mmunicants.  Some  baptize  upon  the 
half-way  covenant.  Some  will  baptize  all  who  are  under  age. 
Agiin,  others  will  baptize  all  under  feven.  Others  ft  ill  will 
baptize  upon  the  good  promifes  of  godfatliers  and  godmothers. 
You  will  obferve  I  ufe  the  word  baptize  in  a  fenfe  which  I  be- 
lieve to  be  improper,  but  I  would  not  offend  you  with  a  word* 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Bapttfm,  79 

when  my  meaning  may  be  underftood.  But  what  propriety  is 
there  in  all  this  inconfiftency  about  the  fubjeds  of  baptifm  ? 
Does  not  the  matter  look  as  though  there  was  no  rule  to  go  by, 
or  as  though  none  underftood  what  it  was  ? 

6.  We  fee  why  good  men,  when  writing  or  fpeaking  of 
baptifm,  are  left  to  fpeak  untruths. 

It  is  doubtlefs  becaufe  they  will  follow  their  own  prejudices, 
and  not  the  truth.  Error  hath  divided  them,  and  Chriil  is  not 
with  them  in  what  they  fay.  Some  good  men,  not  many,  dare 
affert,  in  oppofition  to  the  Baptifts,  that  there  is  not  a  word  a- 
bout  immerfion  for  baptifm,  in  all  the  Bible.  For  laymen  to  fay 
thus,  \s  prefumption,  and  for  men  of  learning  to  make  the  aifer- 
tion,  is  almojl  unpardonable.  For  they  know,  or  ought  to  know, 
that  the  word  to  baptize,  is  not  once  mentioned  in  all  the  Bi- 
ble but  immerfion  is  mentioned,  unlefs  they  mean  to  play  upon 
the  word^  and  then  it  is  a  truth,  when  baptizo  is  mentioned  im- 
merfion is,  if  they  will  give  it  its  plain,  literal  Englifh. 

If  the  Baptifts  have  the  plain,  literal  and  unequivocal  fenfe 
of  the  fcripture  in  their  favour,  is  it  not  enough  that  they  are 
defpifed  and  perfecuted  by  the  wicked  of  every  clafs  and  not 
helped  by  any  ;  but  mull  we  add  to  their  affl  dion,  by  falfe- 
hood  or  equivocation  ?  O  prejudice  !  what  wilt  thou  not  do, 
even  in  a  faint ! 

Befides,  our  good  brethren,  who  are  fo  warm  againft  the 
Baptifts,  and  will  not  allow  them  a  word  for  their  mode,  do  not 
agree  together  to  inform  us  what  the  mode  Oiould  be.  One 
tells  us,  it  is  fprinkling,  another  fays,  pouring  is  the  mode,  a 
third  contends  for  wafhing  the  face,  a  fourth  is  for  putting  wa- 
ter on  the  back  of  llie  neck,  as  the  Swifs  are  faid  to  do  ;  whilfi 
others  affirm,  that  all  ihefe  are  right.  Now,  fuppofe  the  Bap- 
tifts are  wrong,  who  (hall  we  fay  are  in  the  right,  or  is  there 
no  right  in  this  bufmefs  ?  Does  not  all  this  look  juft  as  it  would 
were  there  an  error  at  the  bottom  ?  Hath  the  great  Teacher 
who  came  from  God,  left  matters  thus  at  loofe  ends  ?  Does 
the  Bible  thus  differ,  whilft  pointing  out  the  mode  ?  No.  Its 
language  is  puie  and  determinate. 

7.  It  appears,  that,  in  infant  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  the  in- 
tent of  the  inftitution  is  loft,  and  becomes  no  Chriftian  ordinance 
at  all. 

Both  the  thing  itfdf  and  the  fuHjeds  of  it  are  changed.  It 
is  quite  a  different  thing  from  what  the  Inftitutor  hath  appoint- 
ed. Neither  this  mode  nor  thefe  fubje<5ls  are  known  in  the  in- 
ftitution, nor  in  any  paflage  of  the  Bible,  where  baptifm  is 


80  The  Mode  and  Subje&s       [Serm.  VII. 

mentioned.  This  mode  is  of  man's  device,  and  the  fQhje(5ls  of 
it  have,  at  bell,  bat  a  traditional  right.  For  grtod  men  to  do 
tha^.  wnilil  they  think  it  confillent  with  trath,  appears  to  be  a 
fin  of  ignorance  ;  but  if  any  do  thus,  while  they  know  what 
the  fcriptures  enjoin,  their  practice  defer ves  a  harder  na  ne. 

8.  It  appears  that  dipping,  immerfion,  or  burying  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and'of  che  Holy  Ghoft,  is 
baptifm. 

No  man  of  real  piety  and  folid  learninjr  ever  doubted  it. 
Whereas,  fprinkling  hath  been  doubted  by  many,  denied  con- 
tinually by  a  large  clafs  of  Chriilians,  and  been  proved  by 
none  to  have  been  ever  appointed  as  the  Chriftian  ordinance  of 
baptifm. 

9.  We  fee,  that  every  plea  which  hath  hctn  made,  for  a 
general  or  partial  neglect  of  the  fcripture  mode  of  baptifm,  is 
an  indirc6t  though  unmtentional  charge  of  negligence,  or  want 
of  benevolence,  or  of  forefight,  in  the  D'.vine  Inftitutor.  Let 
every  man  of  candour  and  common  fenfe  examine  this  matter. 
Did  not  the  Lard,  who  made  our  northern  climes,  know  how 
cold  they  are  ? — Did  he  know  them  to  be  too  cold  for  his  dif- 
ciples  who  might  live  in  them,  to  be  feparated  fi  om  the  world 
by  being  vifibly  buried  and  raifed  again  to  join  his  kingdom  ? 
VVhy  then  did  he  not  mention  an  exception  in  our  favour,  and 
rot  leave  us  to  fuff^r  this  inconvenience,  or  be  in  perpetual  un- 
certainty and  continual  difpute,  to  def^ad  our,  at  belt,  but 
doubtful  pra(n:ice  ?  Did  he  not  perfedly  know  all  the  compeUln^ 
nwejjiiies  which  Cyprian  and  others  would,  in  their  erring  judg- 
ments, find  to  break  over  the  bounds  of  the  baptifmal  inftitu- 
tion  ?  Why  then  did  he  ma!;e  no  provifnn  fcr  thefe  extreme- 
cafes?  By  doing  this,  he  would  have  faved  the  Pedobaptiils  a 
world  of  anxiety,  contention  and  cenfure.  The  fad  appears  to 
be,  that  our  Lord  intended,  that  the  way  of  admiflion  into  his^ 
kingdom  fhouM  be  Tiniform,  and  that  thofe  who  would  notfub- 
inic  to  ir,  Ihould  fuffir  the  inccnvenience  of  darknefs,  €rror  and 
flrife. 

10.  From  what  hath  been  faid  in  the  preceding  difcourfes,. 
is  not  the  following  a  fair  and  undeniable  conclufion  ?  That  I 
and  OLher  Pedobaptlft  minifters,  fo  far  as  we  have  fpoken  a 
word  againft  the  Baptiftf,  and  efpecially  that  thofe,  who  have 
publickly  warned  their  people  to  avoid  the  Baptifts  and  flee 
from  chem,  as  from  a  dividing  and  dangerous  herefy,  have  in 
this  matter  aded  the  part  of  the  old  Scribes,  Pharifees,  hypo- 
crites— who  would  not  go  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ihemfelves, 
and  thofe  who  were  entering,  they  hindered. 


Serm.  VII.]  of  Baptifm.  81 

I  by  no  means  fuppofe  that  all  who  have  done  thus,  are  in- 
deed hypocrites,  fave  in  this  particular.  No  reafonable  doubt 
can  be  entertained,  but  many  of  them  are  learned,  pious,  and 
very  ufcful  m*en  ;  men,  whom  the  Lord  hath  greatly  honoured 
as  labourers,  in  gathering  in  the  harveft  of  fouls.  Many  of 
thefe  have  been,  in  meafure,  bold,  zealous  and  faithful,  like 
Peter ;  yet  when  they  diifemble,  or  teach  and  praiSlife  contrary 
from  the  truth,  they  are  to  be  blamed  ;  yes,  they  ar«,  in  this 
inftance,  worthy  to  be  rebuked. 

It  would,  indeed,  be  very  injudicious  in  me  to  contend  that  all 
which  the  Baptifts  have  faid  and  done  is  juftitiable.  It  would 
be  equally  injudicious  to  jailify  myfeif,  or  my  brethren,  where 
we  have  both  faid  and  done  tilings  contrary  from  the  church 
and  name  of  Jefus  of  Nazareth.  It  is  time  for  both  minifters 
and  people  to  look  to  this  matter,  left  the  Lord  fend  leannsfs 
into  our  fouls. 

1 1.  From  a  review  of  the  whole  fubjecfl,  the  following  in- 
ference appears  natural,  and  at  the  fame  time  worthy  of  much 
confideration.  The  divinely  conftitnted  method  by  which  any 
of  the  fallen  race  are  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  below,  re- 
markably fets  to  our  view  the  way  by  which  we  are  to  com- 
mence perfect  members  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  above.  Out 
obedience  to  the  former  is  a  pra<^ical  declaration  of  our  faith  ia 
the  latter. 

Jn  joining  Chrift's  kingdom  on  earth,  we  profelTedly  die  un- 
to fm,  go  down  to  the  grave,  are  buried,  and  rife,  ai  from  the 
dead.  To  join  the  kingdom  of  glory,  we  mull  a<flually  expe- 
rience wh^t  is  but  fhadowed  forth  in  baptifm.  We  muft  die, 
be  buried.  Or  return  to  the  duit,  and  rife  from  tne  dead. 

How  exa<5lly  doth  our  entrance  into  the  church  militant  (had- 
ow  forth  our  hoped  for  entrance  into  the  church  triumphant  1 
It  aHb  appears  that  Chriil  hath  diredled,  that  the  ruSje>fts  of 
the  one  fticuld  be  profefTedly,  what  the  fubjedls  of  the  other 
fiiall  be  actually,  all  faints. 

How  beautiful  doth  the  church  appear^  fo  far  as  fhe  obferves 
the  commands  of  her  Lord,  as  to  the  members  which  fhe  ad- 
mits, and  the  manner  of  receiving  them  !  She  thus  refembles 
Jeriifalem,  which  is  above,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all,  if  we 
be  Chriftiacs.  May  the  Lord  dire<S  our  hearts  into  the  love 
of  the  truth. 

In  the  concluficn  of  the  whole.  It  becomes  us  to  add,  to  the 
fifths  delivered,  what  Chrift  Jefus  added  to  my  text :  Amek, 

END    OF    TBE    SERMONS^ 


A  MINIATURE  HISTORY 

OF   THE 

BAPTISTS. 


IT  may  be  pLufmg  to  fome  of  mv  readers  to  be  prefent- 
ed  with  a  brief  account  of  the  B^iprifls.  I  fhall  extract 
this  account  from  the  writings  rf  thofe  who  were  not  of  the 
Baptift    denomination,    but    rather   prejudiced    againft    their. 

Here  it  may  be  obferved,  that  the  religious  fe^r,  c.Uled 
Baptifts,  have  caufed  the  learned  world  more  perplexity  and 
refearch  to  decypher  their  origin,  than  any  other  fedl  of  Chrif- 
tians,  or,  perhaps,  than  all  others.  Yes,  this  refearch  hath 
bafHed  all  their  erudition  in  ancient  ftory. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  fix  the  period  when  one  fedlofthis 
denomination  was  firft  called  Petrobrufians,  when  another  was 
known  by  the  name  of  Waterlandians,  when  a  third  was  de- 
D'i^minated  Mennonites,  &c.  But  the  difficulty  is  this,  to  afcer- 
tain  the  time,  place  and  m.edium,  by  which  Chrift's  difciples 
were  led  to  adopt  the  peculi-ir  fentiment,  which  is  now  held  by 
thofe  called  Baptiits,  and  which  diftinguifhes  them  from  all 
odier  cenominaiions. 

It  may  be  farther  ohferved,  that  if  no  onej  however  learned 
and  wife,  be  ab'e  to  trace  this  fed  to  any  beginning  fliort  of  the 
days  of  theaponies,  orcf  Chrift,  it  is  poffible  tliat  it  then  arcfe. 
B  fides,  if  a-i  other  religious  denominations,  or  the  Pedobaptift*, 
who  include  all  which  are  not  Baptifts,  can  be  traced  to  a  prob- 
able origin  ffiort  of  the  apoftlec,  and  the  Baptills  cannot  b^,  it 
affords  ftiil  more  prcbabiiity,  that  they  might  have  ariten  then. 

I  wifh  Tiy  readers  to  indulge  me  in  one  queftion,  and  to  give 
me  an  explicit  anfwer.  Are  you  willing  to  have  the  ojigin  of 
the  Bip'jfts  falrlv  explored,  and  to  open  your  eyes  to  the  light, 
IhouM  li;{ht  he  afforded  ? 

Y'-u  cann  -t,  rny  Chrillian  readers,  unlefs  ycur  minds  be  un- 
du'y  f^-aved  by  prejudice,  do  other  wife  than  fay,  Yes.  For, 
thougn  y^u  be  not  very  friendly  to  the  Baptifts,  you  will  not 
deny  rhenn  what  you  grant  to  your  worft  enemy,  libeity  to  fpeak 
the  truth,  and  that  truth  its  weight,  at  leaft  in  meafure. 

It  ought  to  be  particularly  noted,  that  my  obj.:cl  is  not  to 
give  the  hiftoiy  of  a  name,  but  of  a  principle.     I  ihall  not  con« 


A    MINlATaRE    HISTORY,    &C.  83 

tend  who  were  finl  called  BaptiTrs,  Anabaptlft-,  MennoDites,  cr 
the  like  ;  but  who  have  held  the  peculiar  fentiment  which  is 
adopted  by  thofe  who  are  called  Baptifts.  Wherever  we  fiad 
this  principle,  there  we  find  the  men,  the  Chriftians,  v^ho,  had 
they  lived  in  our  day,  would  be  ftyled  Baptifts.  Nor  is  the 
prefent  controverfy,this,  Whence  came  that  mode  ofbaptifni, 
which  is  pra<5lired  by  all,  who  are  known  by  the  name  Baptifts  ? 
For  this  mode  is  granted,  generally,  if  not  imiverfally,'  by  a!l 
learned  and  honeft  men,  to  be  as  ancient  as  John  the  Baptift 
and  the  apoitles.  This  mrde  is,  indeed,  not  peculiar  to  the 
Baptifts,  for  the  Pedobaptifts.  for  maiy  centuries,  pracflifed  this 
mode  ;  and  many  of  them  do,  to  this  day,  pradife  imn^.erfjon. 
The  peculiar  chara^eriftic  of  the  Baptifts  is  this  :  They  hold, 
that  the  ordinince  of  baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  to  adults  cr 
to  vifible  believers  only. 

One  natural  confequence  nf  this  principle  is,  when  any  ens 
who  was  baptized,  cr  fprinkled,  m  his  infancy,  comes  over  to 
the  Baptifts'  fentiment,  tliey  require  him  to  be  baptized. 
Hence  they  are  called  Anabaptifts.  Another  very  natural 
confequence  is^  this  fentiment  conftralns  the  Baptifts  to  cppofe 
the  baptifm  r  f  infants.  Hence  they  are  diftinguiftied  by  the 
name  of  Antipedobaptifts. 

I  Ihall  add  one  obfervation  more,  and  then  proceed  to  give 
you  a  fuccinc>  hiftory  of  the  Baptifts.  I'he  obfervation  is  this : 
Whenever  and  wherever  I  find  perfons,  who  hold  the  peculiar 
charadtariftic  fentiment  cf  the  Baptifts,  I  fhili  call  them  by 
that  name.     Their  hiftory  now  follows. 

L  The  origin  ci  the  Baptifts  can  be  found  no  wliere,  unlefs 
it  be  conceded  that  ic  was  at  Jordan,  or  Enon. 

Dr.  Mofbeim,  in  his  hift-^ry  of  the  Baptifts,  fays,  "The  true 
cr'igin  of  that  h6t,  which  acquired  the  denomination  of  the  An- 
abaptifts  by  their  adminiftering  anew  die  rite  of  baptifm  to 
thofe  who  come  over  to  their  comm.union,  and  derived  that  cf 
Mennonites  from  the  famous  man  to  vrhom  they  owe  the  e:reat- 
eft  part  of  their  prefent  felicity,  is  hid  in  the  rtmote  depths  cS antlq. 
uity,  and  is  of  confequence  extremely  difficult  to  be  afcertained." 
Here  Dr.  Molheim,  as  learned  an  hiftorian,  though  not  {o 
candid  a  one,  as  the  fcience  of  letters  can  boaft,  bears  pofidve 
teftimony,  that  the  origin  of  the  Bap:ifts  is  hidden  in  the  re- 
mole  depths  of  antiquity.  Nothing  is  more  evident  than  this  ;  the 
Doftor  either  knew  not  their  origin,  or  was  not  candid  enough 
to  confefs  it.  At  leaft,  we  have  this  conclufton,  that  he  could, 
fiad  their  origin  no  v/here  fhort  of  the  apoftles. 


84  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

II.  A  large  number  of  the  Baptifts  were  fcattered,  opprei- 
fed,  and  perfecuted,  through  many,  if  not  through  all,  the  na- 
tions of  Europe,  before  the  dawn  of  the  reformation  under  Lu- 
ther and  Calvin.  When  Luther,  feconded  by  fevei  al  princes  of 
the  petty  ftates  of  Germany,  arofe  in  oppcfition  to  the  over- 
grown ufurpatioFiS  of  the  church  of  Rome,  the  Baptifts  alfo 
arofe  from  their  hiding  places.  They  hoped  that  what  they 
had  been  long  expelling  and  prayirg  for  was  now  at  the  door ; 
the  time  in  which  the  fufferings  of  God's  people  fhould  be 
greatly  terminated  :  but  God  had  not  raifed  Luther's  views  of 
reformation  to  nigh  the  height  the  Baptifts  were  expeding. 
Their  detedation  of  the  Mother  of  Harlots,  owing  to  theii  bit- 
ter experience  of  her  cruelties,  and  ihe  clear  gofpel  light  with 
which  they  had  been  favoured  above  Luther,  and  their  ardent 
defire  to  be  utterly  delivered  from  her  cruel  oppreiTions,  made 
them  wiih  to  carry  the  reformation  farther  than  God  had  ap- 
pointed Lutlier  to  accomplilK  They  were  foon  difappointed 
in  Luther,  and  probably  did  not  duly  appreciate  the  reforma- 
tion which  he  was  inft  rumen  rally  efFe<fting.  It  was  as  might 
have  been  expelled  ;  the  Lutheran-^  and  the  Baptifts  fell  out 
by  the  v/ay  ;  and  Calvin,  if  not  Luther,  warmly  oppcfcd  them. 
See  M'Jheim.  Cent,  XV  I.    Chap   iii.  Sea.  3.  Part  2. 

Molheim,  vol.  IV.  page  427,  fpeaking  of  the  Baptifts,  fays, 
**  This  fedt  ftarted  up  all  of  a  fudden,  in  feveral  countries,  at 
the  fame  point  of  time,  and  at  the  very  period  when  die  firft  con- 
tefts  of  the  reformers  wiih  the  Roman  Pontiffs  drew  the  atten- 
tion of  the  world." 

From  this  we  have  one  plain  and  fair  dedu(5tion  ;  that  the  Bap- 
tifts were  before  the  reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin,  and 
therefor-  did  not  take  their  rifs  from  the  eathufiafts  under  Mun- 
•zer  and  Storck,  or  at  that  time  ;  or  at  Munfter. 

III.  The  HuSItes,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  the  Wickliffites, 
in  the  fourteenth,  and  the  Petrobiufians,  in  the  twelfth,  and  the 
Waldenfes,  were  all  Baptifts.*  To  this  fafi  Dr.  Moftieim  bears 
the  following  teftimony.f  *'  It  may  be  obferved  that  the  Men- 
nonites  (i.  e.  the  Baptifts  of  Eaft  and  Weft  Fnefland,  Holland, 
Gelderland,  Brabant,  Weftphalia,  and  other  places  in  the  North 
of  Europe)  are  not  entirely  mtjlake?i^  when  they  boaft  their  de- 
fcentfrom  the  Waldenfes,  Petrobrufians,  and  other  ancient  k6isy 
who  are  ufiially  confidered  as  witrnjes  of  the  truth  in  times  of 

*  Not  all,  every  one  ;  but  all,  generally, 
t  Fcl.  IV.  pp.  4z8,  429* 


OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  ^^ 

Kniverflil  daiknefs  and  fuperftiiion.  Before  the  v'lCc  of  Luther 
and  Calvin,  there  lay  conceahd  in  almojl  all  the  countries  of  Eu- 
rope,  particularly  In  Bohemia,  Moravia,  Switzerland  and  Ger- 
many, manyperfons,  who  adhered  tenacioufly  to  the  following 
do^rine,  which  the  Waldenfes,  Wickiiffites  and  HufTues  had 
maintained  ;  fome  in  a  more  dif^uifed  and  others  in  a  more 
open  and  public  manner,  viz.  Thai  the  kingdom  of  Chrijly  or  the 
viftble  church  he  had  fjlall'ified  upon  earthy  teas  an  ajfenthly  of  true 
and  real  faints,  and  ought  therefore  to  he  inaccejfihle  to  the  vnched  and 
unrighteous,  and  alfo  exempt  from  all  thofe  injlitulions  luhich  human 
prudence  fuggeJIs  to  oppofe  the  progrcfs  of  iniquity,  or  to  correct  and 
reform  tranfgrejfors.  This  maxim  is^  the  true  fource  of  all  tie 
pecuiiaiities,  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  religious  do6trine  and 
difcipline  of  the  Mennonites,  (or  Baptifts  in  the  North  of  Eu- 
rope) and  it  is  moi\  certain  that  the  greatejl  part  of  xkit^z  peculi- 
arities were  approved  of  by  many  of  thofe  who,  before  the  dawn 
of  the  reformation,  entertained  the  notion  already  mentioned 
relating  to  the  vifible  church  of  Chrift." 

From  this  teftimony  of  Dr.   Mofheim  we  may  remark— 

1.  That  the  Mennonites  were  Baptifts,  or  Anabaptifts,  for 
ihefe  different  names  he  ufes  to  exprcfs  one  and  the  fame  thing. 

2.  That  the  Petrobrufrans  were  Baptifts  ;  for  the  BapriUs 
aflerc,  and  Molheim  allows  it,  that  they  were  iheir  progenitors 
in  principle  and  practice.  Befides,  in  his  hiftory  of  the  twelfili 
century,  part  II.  chap.  v.  feci.  7,  he  exprefsiy  tells  us,  that  one 
of  tlieir  tenets  Avas,  that  no  perfons  nvhaffjcutr  ivere  to  be  hapiizcd 
before  they  'were  come  to  the  full  ufe  of  thtir  reafon. 

3.  That  the  Waldenfes,  Wickiiffites  and  Huflites  were  Eap- 
tiils  ;  for,  as  Morneim  fays,  they  ali  held  to  the  great  and  lead- 
ing  maxim,  ^'hich  is  the  true  fource  of  all  tlie  peculiarities  that 
are  to  be  found  in  the  religious  doftrine  and  difcipline  oi  the 
Mennonites.  ^^f^  feveral  denominations  of  Chriftians  v.ere 
not  known  by  the  ancient,  modern  and  appropiiate  names  Bap- 
tifts. But  their  do»5trine  and  difcipline  were  the  fame  with  our 
Baptifts,  and  were  they  now  living,  they  would  he  thus  called. 
In  other  words  ;  juft  fo  far  as  they  were  conftftent  w  ith  their 
great  and  leading  maximy  and  juft  fo  far  as  the  modern  Baptifts 
are  conliftent  with  their  great  and  leading  maxim,  juft  fo  far 
thefe  ancient  and  modern  Baptifts  are  alike  the  one  to  the  other. 

4.     That  in  the  fixteemh  century  the  Waldenfes,  Petrobru- 
fians  and  other  ancient  fectb  (i.  e.  of  die  Baptifts)  were  ufually 
conftdered  as  having  been  witneftes  of  the  truth,  in  the  times  of 
H 


^6  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

darknefs  and  univerfal  funerRiLion.     How  d  fferently  from  this 
would  and  do  many  confider  them  in  our  day  !  " 

5.  That  before  the  rif-  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  there  lay  con- 
cealed in  almoil  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  particularly  in  Bo- 
hemia, Moravia.  Switzerland  and  Germany,  many  perfons  who 
held  the  fame  dcifttir.e  and  difcipl.ne  with  the  Baptifts  in  our 
day,  and  were,  of  neceflary  and  fair  confequence,  of  the  fame 
denomination. 

IV.  We  have  already  traced  the  Baptlfls  down  to  the 
twelfth  century.  We  have  a]fo  found  that  they  were  fcattered 
over  almoft  all  the  countries  of  hurope,  and  were,  in  the  dark 
ages  of  popery,  die  witnefTes  of  the  truth ;  or  have  been  ufually 
thus  confidered.  Befides,  v/e  have  found  that  ihe  Waldenfes 
were,  in  principle  and  practice,  Baptifls  ;  or  in  other  words, 
we  have  found  that  the  Waldenfes  were  Baptifts.  We  will 
Jiow  fee  to  v.'hat  origin  we  can  trace  the  Waldenfes. 

Dr.  Maclaine,  who  iranllated  Mcfheim's  church  hiftory  from 
the  original  Latin,  gives  us,  vol.  III.  pages  118,  119,  under 
note  G,  the  following  hiftory  of  the  Waldenfes.  His  words 
are,  *'  We  may  venture  to  affirm  the  contrary  (i.  e.  from  what 
MrHieimhad  juft  fiiid  of  the  Waldenfes  taking  their  name  from 
Peter  Waldus)  with  Eeza  and  other  writers  of  note  ;  for  it 
feems  evident,  from  the  beft  recortls,  that  Valdus  derived  his 
name  from  the  true  Valdenfes  of  Piedmont,  whofe  dodrine  he 
adopted,  and  who  were  known  by  the  name  of  Vaudois  and 
Valdenfes,  before  he  or  his  imimediate  followers  exided.  If 
the  Valdenfes.  or  Waldenfes,  had  derived  their  name  from  any 
eminent  teacher,  it  would  probably  have  been  from  Valdo,  who 
was  remarkable  for  the  purity  of  his  doctrine,  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, and  was  the  cotemporary  and  chief  counfelior  of  Beren- 
^rarius.  But  the  trufli  is,  that  they  derive  their  name  from 
their  vallies  in  Piedmont,  which  in  iheiri|mguage  are  called 
Vaux.  Plence  Vaudois,  their  true  name  ;"' Hence  Peter,  (or, 
as  others  call  him,  John)  of  Lyons,  was  called  in  Latin  Val- 
gus, becaufe  he  had  adopted  their  dcclrine  ;  and  hence  the 
term  Valdenfes  and  Waldenfes,  ufed  by  thcfe  who  write  in 
Enc?i;rh,  or  Latin,  in  the  place  of  Vaudois.  The  bloody  En- 
qui'iV.or  Reincrus  Sacco,  who  exerted  fuch  a  furious  zeal  for 
the  deilruaion  of  the  Waldenfes,  lived  but  about  eighty  years 
after  Valgus  of  Lyons,  and  muft  th^efore  be  fuppofcd  to  know 
whether  or  not  he  was  the  real  founder  of  the  Valdenies,  or 
Leo-lifts  ;  and  yet  it  is  remarkable,  that  he  fpeaks  of  the  Leon- 
%i  as  a  feci  that  had  flourished  about  five  hundred  years ;  nay, 


©F    THE    BAPTISTS.  87 

fnentions  srtithors  of  note,  who  make  their  anliqiiity  remoant  to 
the  apoftolic  age.  See  the  account  given  of  Sacccts  book  by  the 
ycfii'u  Gretfer  in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum.  I  know  not  upon 
what  principle  Dr  Molheirn  maintains  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  valhes  of  Piedmont  are  to  be  carefully  dirtingnifned  from 
the  Waldenfes;  and  I  am  perfuaded  that  whoever  will  be  at 
the  pains  to  read  attentively  the  2d,  25th,  26:h,  and  27lh  chap- 
ters of  the  firft  book  of  Leger's  tiiliorie  des  Eglifes  Vaudoifes, 
will  find  this  diPiiniflion  entirely  groundlefs. — When  the  Papills 
aiks  us  where  our  religion  was  before  Luther,  we  generally 
anfwer,  in  the  Bible,  and  we  anfwer  well.  But  to  gratify  their 
tafte  for  tradition,  and  human  authority,  we  may  add  to  this 
anfwer — and  in  the  vallies  of  Piedmont. 

To  the  above  we  may  add,  one  of  the  Popifh  Writers,  fpeak- 
in,^  of  the  Waldenfes,  fays,  "  The  hcrefy  of  the  IValdsnfes  ts  ths 
oldejl  herefy  in  the  ivorld.^'* 

It  is  here  worthy  to  be  particularly  noticed — 

1.  That  Reinerus  Sacco  fpeaks  of  the  Waldenfes,  or  Bap- 
tlfls,  of  his  day,  as  a  fed  that  had,  at  that  time,  flouriPaed  for 
about  five  hundred  years ;  which  brings  the  hiftory  of  the  Bap- 
tifts,  as  a  religious  fedt,  down  to  the  fifth  century. 

2.  That  tliis  fame  Reinerus  Sacco  mentions  authors  of  note, 
who  make  the  antiquity  o^  the  Waldenfean  BAptiils  to  remount; 
io  the  apofioiic  age. 

3.  That  the  Baptiils  are  the  moft  ancient  of  all  the  relig- 
ious feds,  who  iiave  fee  themfelves  to  oppofe  the  ghodly  pow- 
ers of  the  Romanics. 

4.  That  if  there  be  any  body  of  Chiillians,  who  have  ex- 
ited during  the  reign  cf  antichrift,  or  of  tlje  man  of  fin,  the 
Baptiils  have  been  this  living  church  of  Jefus  Chrill. 

5.  Ths  confsq-ience  cf  the  vv-hole  is  this:  The  Bapfids 
have  no  origin  fhort  of  the  Apoftles.  Tliey  amfe  in  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptifi,  and  increafed  largely  'in  the  days  of  our 
bl^ifed  Saviour,  when  he  fiiowed  himfelf  unto  Ifrael,  and  in  the 
days  of  his  ApoRles,  and  have  exiRed,  under  the  fevered  oppref- 
fions,  \\ith  intervals  of  profpe>*y,  ever  fince. 

But  as  to  the  Pcdobaptifts,  their  origin  is  at  once  traced  to 
about  the  middle  of  the  fecond  century  ;  when  the  myflcry  of 
iniquity  not  only  began  to  v,'ork,  but,  by  its  fermentation,  had 
produced  this  error  of  fruitful  evils,  namely,  that  baptifm  v.'as 
effential  to  falvation  :  yes,  that  it  was  regeneration.  Hence 
arofe  the  neceffity  of  baptizing  children.     Now  comes  forward 

*  PrefiJcnt  Edwards's  Hift.  of  Redemption,  p.  267. 


83  A    IvilNlATyRE    HISTORY 

Irenx.is,  and  informs  that  the  church  had  a  tradition  from  the 
Apodies  to  give  baptifm  to  infants.  We  are  told  in  the  Appen- 
dix to  MoOieim's  Church  Hidory,  that  one  of  the  remarkable 
things  which  took  place  in  the  fecond  century  was  the  baptiz- 
ing ot  infants,  it  being  never  known  before,  as  a  Chriftian  or- 
dinance for  them. 

What  a  pity  it  is,  that  good  n  -^.i,  who  have  renounced  the 
error,  whi^h  was,  as  church  hiflory  informs  us,  the  progenitor 
of  infant  baptifm,  fhould  ftill  retain  its  pra<5iical  and  erroneous 
offspring,  to  the  prejudice  and  marring  of  the  church  of  God  ! 
Not  a  fnigle  fedl  of  the  PedobaptiRs  can  iind  its  origin  nearer 
to  the  Apoftlesthan  the  fecond  century.  We  hencexonciude, 
that  their  origin  was  there,  and  that  they  then  and  there  amfs? 
in  the  mydery  which  was  then  working.  May  the  Father  of 
liglits  open  the.  eyes  of  my  brethren,  that  they  may  come  out 
©f  this,  perhaps,  the  laft  thicket  of  grofs  error  and  darknefs. 

I  will  now  add — 

V.  The  teftimony  which  Prefident  Edwards  bears  in  favour 
of  ll:e  Waldenfes  and  other  faithful  ones,  who  were  fcattered 
through  all  parts  of  Europe  in  the  dark  ages  of  Popery.  It  is 
the  following  : 

"  In  every  age  of  this  dark  time,  there  appeared  particular 
perfons  in  ail  parts  of  Chriftendom,  who  bore  a  teftimony  a- 
r(ainft  the  corruptions  and  tyranny  of  the  church  of  Rome. 
There  is  no  one  age  of  antichrift,  even  in  the  darkeft  time  of 
all,  b^t  ecclefiaflical  hiftorians  m-ention  a  great  many  by  name, 
who  manifefted  an  abhorrence  of  the  Pope  and  his  idolatrous 
wordiip,  and  plead  for  the  ancient  purity  of  doctrine  and  wor- 
ihip.  God  was  pleafed  to  maintain  an  uninterrupted  fuccef- 
iion  of  witneifes,  through  the  whole  time,  in  Germany,  France, 
Britain,  aud  otlier  countries,  as  hiilorians  demonftrate,  and 
mention  them  by  name,  and  give  an  account  of  the  teftimony 
which  they  held.  Many  of  them  were  private  perfons,  and 
many  of  them  minifters,  and  fome  magiftrates  and  perfons  of 
great  diftintftion.  And  there  were  numbers  in  every  age,  who 
were  perfecuted  and  put  to  death  for  this  teftimony. 

"  Behdes  thefe  particular  perfons,  difperfed  here  and  there, 
'Jiere  was  a  certain  people,  called  the  Waldenfes,  who  lived  fep- 
arate  from  all  the  reft  of  the  world,  who  kept  themfelves  pure^ 
and  conftantly  bore  a  teftimony  againft  the  church  of  Rome, 
through  all  this  dark  time.  The  place  where  they  dwelt  was 
the  Vaudois,  or  the  five  vallies  of  Piedmont,  a  very  mountain- 
ous country,  between  Italy  and  France.  The  place  where  they 
lived  was  compaffed  with  thole  exceeding  high  mountains,  call- 


OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  89 

«d  tiie  Alps,  which  were  almoft  impiifrable.  The  pafTage  over 
ihefe  mountainous,  defert  countries,  was  fo  diffii-nlt,  that  the 
vallies  where  this  people  dwelt  were  ah^ioft  Inacceflible.  There 
this  people  lived  for  many  ages,  as  it  were  alone,  where,  in  a 
ftate  of  feparation  from  all  the  world,  having  very  little  to  do 
with  any  other  people,  they  ferved  God  in  the  ancient  purity 
<if  his  worfliip,  and  never  fubmitted  to  the  church  of  Rome. 
This  place,  in  this  deiert,  m.ountainous  country,  probably  was 
the  place,  efpecially  meant  in  the  12th  chap,  of  Rev.  6th 
verfc,  as  the  place  prepared  of  God  for  the  woman,  that  they 
fhould  feed  her  there  during  the  reign  of  Antlchrifl:. 

**  Some  of  the  Popilh  writers  themfelves  own  that  that  peo- 
ple never  fubmitted  to  the  church  of  Rome.  One  of  the  Pop- 
ifli  writers,  fpeaking  of  the  Waldenfes,  fays,  the  herefy  of  the. 
Waldenfes  is  the  oldeft  herefy  in  the  world.  It  is  fuppofed, 
that  this  people  firfl:  betook  themfelves  to  this  defert,  fecret  place 
among  the  mountains,  to  hide  themfelves  from  the  fcverity  of 
the  heathen  perfecutions,  which  v.-ere  before  Conftantine  the 
Great;  and  thus  the  woman  fled  into  the  wiluernefs  from  the 
face  of  the  ferpent.  Rev,  xii.  6  ;  and  lO  verfe  14,  And  to  the 
woman  were  given  two  wings  of  a  great  eagle,  that  fhe  might 
fly  into  the  wildernefs  into  her  place,  where  fhe  is  nouriflied  for 
a  time  and  times  and  half  a  time  from  the  face  of  the  ferpent. 
And  the  people  being  fettled  there,  their  pofterity  continued 
there  from  age  to  age  afterwards,  and  being  as  it  were  by  nat- 
ural walls,  as  well  as  by  God's  grace,  feparated  from  the  reft  of 
the  world,  never  partook  of  the  overflowing  coiruption." 

It  is  hoped  diat  the  reader  will  very  carefully  and  candidly 
compare  what  is  teftified  to  us  by  three  very  learned  men,  Dr. 
Mofheim,   Dr.  Machine,  and  Prefident  Edwards.     The  tefti- 
mony  of  the  firft  is,  that  the  Waldenfes  and  many  others  who 
are  ujually  coufuhred  as  iv'ttnejfes  of  the  truth  in  the  times  ofunher-^ 
faldarhnsfs  ^wd  fuperjlhicn,  were  eff^ntially  agreed  with  the  Bap- 
tifts   of  modern  date,  as   10  prlncipls  and  praclke^  or   as  to  the 
great  maxim,  whence  flow  all  the  peculiarities  of  that  denomi- 
nation.     Ills  teftimony,   in  Ihort,   is  this  ;     the   Huflites,  the 
Wickiifiites,  the  Petrobrufians,  and  the  Waldenfes,  with  other 
witnefTes  of  the  trutJi,  fcattered  over  Europe,  in  the  dark  ages 
of  Popery,  were  elTentially  the  fame  with  the  Baptiils  of  later 
times  J  or  that  they  all  v/ere  what  we  call  Baptiifs. 

Dr.  Machine  teftifies  that  the  Waldenfes  flour iflied  as  earlv 
as  the  fifch  ceniury ;  yes,  he  informs  us  that  fome  authors  of 
note  carry  their  antiquity  up  to  the  aooftolic  age. 
H  2. 


90  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY 

Prefident  Edwards  informs  us  that  thefe  Waldenfes  were 
the  m:Un  body  of  t)ie  church  in  the  dark  ages,  and  have  been, 
together  with  their  Icattered  brethren,  the  pure  church  of  Jefus 
Chriit,  during  the  reign  of  Antichria,  and,  of  certain  confe- 
quence,  were  fucceiTors  of  the  pure  church,  from  the  days  of 
Chrift  and  his  apoRles. 

^  The  fair  confequence  of  all  is  this,  that  the  Baptifts  have  been 
the  uninterrupted  church  of  our  Lord  from  the  apoftles*  day 
to  ours. 

I  may,  indeed,  exclaim,  What  have  1  been  believing,  what 
]iave  I  been  doing,  with  refpeft  to  the  Baptifts,  all  my  days  ? 

I  know,  and  I  confefs,  that  the  hillory  of  the  church  aifures 
me,  that  the  denomination  of  Chriflians  to  which  I  have  belong,- 
ed,  and  to  which  1  do  tlill  vifibly  belong,  came  through  the 
church  of  Rome,  and  was  broken  off  from  the  mother  of  har- 
lots, and  it  is  not  greatly  to  be  wondered  at,  if  all  her  filth 
fliould  not  be  yet  wiped  away.  At  the  fame  time,  the  fame 
hillory  aifures  me,  that  the  Baptifts  never  have  fubmitted  to 
her  fupeiftitions  and  filthy  abominations. 

I  am  fomewhat  furprifed  at  my  own  long  continued  igno- 
rance, and  at  the  yet  remaining  darknefs  of  my  brethren,  as 
to  this  matter.  But  above  all,  what  fhall  I  fay,  at  the  hard 
oppofition  which  fome  good  men  yet  maintain  againft;  their 
brethren,  the  Baptifts  ?  Surely  they  might  with  great  propri- 
ety be  addrelfed  in  the  words  of  Gamaliel :  "  Take  heed  to 
yourfelves  what  ye  intend  to  do,  as  touching  thele  men."  If 
ye  will  not  favour  them,  "  refrain  from  them,  and  let  them 
.alone  ;  for  if  their  counfel  or  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to 
nought ;  but  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  cannot  overthrow  it ;  left 
haply  ye  be  found  even  to  fight  againft  God." 

All  the  power,  craft,  and  cruelty  of  the  wicked,  though 
practifed  for  nighly  one  thoufand  eight  hundred  years,  have 
not  been  able  to  prevail  againft  them.  Surely  the  mifguided 
ical  of  good  men  will  not. 

In  this  ihort  Hiftory  of  the  Baptifts,  we  fee  the  continued 
.nccomplilhment  of  one  of  Chrift*s  promiifory  predidions, 
which  is.  Matt.  xvi.  1 8.  The  gates  of  hell  Ihall  not  prevail 
ap-ainft  the  church.  That  denomination  of  Chriftians  which 
are  called  Baptifts,  are  the  only  known  fociety  of  profeffing 
Chriftians,  againft  which  Satan  hath  not  prevailed,  either  it\ 
point  of  doa:rine,  or  difcipline,  or  both.  This  church,  or  old 
and  inveterate  herefy,  as  Satan  would  call  \\f  he  acknowledges^ 


OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  91 

by  the  mouth  of  his  fervants,  the  Romanifts,  that  he  could 
never  fubdue.  It  is  true,  Satan  hath  joined  many  of  his  legions 
to  it,  as  he  did  many  falfe  brethren  to  the  difciples  in  the  days 
of  the  apofties.  But  he  hath  never,-  no,  not  for  an  hour,  pre- 
vailed upon  this  ancient  and  primitive  church  to  give  up  the 
do(5lrines  of  grace,  or  the  adminiilrations  of  the  ordinances  as 
Chrill  delivered  them  to  his  people.  That  which  Ihe  firll  re- 
ceived, Ihe  ftill  holds  fall,  and  will.  In  ail  the  hiftory  of  the 
church,  we  read  of  no  other  body  of  profeffing  Chriftians,  after 
which  Satan  hath  caft  fuch  a  continual  flood  of  waters  ;  but 
hitherto  the  earth  hath  helped  the  woman,  and  the  flood  of 
perfecution  hath  not  prevailed.  Satan^s  future  efforts  will  be 
equally  without  effecl:. 

My  Fathers  and  Brethren  in  the  minidry,  and  my  brethren 
among  the  profefTed  difciples  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  fuffer  a 
word  of  exhortation. 

If  you  will  not  take  up  the  crofs,  and  fo  increafe  the  num- 
ber of  Chrift's  continually  preferred,  yet  always  fuffering,  little 
flock,  be  ye  careful  how  ye  fet  yourfelves  in  array  againft  them  ; 
for  more  are  they  who  are  for  them,  than  are  thofe  who  are 
againft  them.  With  you  is  an  arm  of  flefh,  in  all  your  oppo- 
fitions,  but  with  them  is  the  Lord  their  God  to  help  them, 
and  he  will  help  them  ;  and  by  and  by  he  will  help  them 
right  early. 

I  fhall  be  very  pleafmgly  difappointed,  fhould  I  not  be,  by 
many  of  you  who  are  rulers  in  ifrael,  fet  at  nought,  for  com- 
ing over  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  againft  the  mighty.  But,  if 
I  may  but  know  the  truth,  and  pleafe  the  Lord,  it  is,  with  me, 
but  a  comparatively  fmall  thing  to  be  judged  of  you,  or  of 
man's  judgment.  I  do,  indeed,  wifti  for  the  continuance  of 
your  good  opinion  and  friendfhip,  but  I  cannot  pofTefs  them 
at  the  expenfe  of  truth.  That  I  might  teftify  unto  you  thefe 
things,  I  have  rifl^ed  every  thing  which  the  world  calls  valuable. 
I  am  now  determined,  and  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift  I  hope  that  to  the  end  of  my  life  1  Ihall  be  deter- 
mined, to  venture  every  thing  in  defence  of  the  dodrines  and 
ordinances  and  chnrch  of  the  Son  of  God.  I  befeech  all  of 
you,  who  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jefuf,  that  ye  do  not  as 
did  many  of  the  chief  rulers  in  ifrael.  They  believed  on 
Chrift,  but  did  not  confefs  him,  becaufe  of  the  Pharifees,  left 
they  fliould  be  put  out  of  the  fynagogue  ;  for  they  loved  the 
praife  of  men,  more  than  the  praife  of  God.     John  xii.  42,  43. 


92  A    MINIATURE    HISTORY,    ^C, 

You  have  now  heard  me,  and  know  what  I  do.  You  will 
therefore  now  make  up  your  judgment.  But  I  pray  you, 
remember  one  thing  :  With  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye 
fhall  be  judged. 

I  am,  Reader f 

Thy  Servant,  for  the  GofpePs  fake, 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 


E -At rati  from  the  Bapltjl  Mi/Jtonary  Magazine,  No,  4. 

Account  of  the  Baptifl  Church  lately  conflituted 
at  Sedgwick,  Diftricl  of"  Maine. 

THE  Rev.  Daniel  Merrill  graduated  at  Dartmouth 
College,  1 7  89,  was  ordained  over  the  Congrcgalional 
Church  in  Sedj^vvick,  in  September,  1793.  -^'^  labours  have 
been  very  much  blelTed  among  his  people,  who  have  expe- 
rienced feveral  precious  feafons  of  revival  under  his  miniftry, 
particularly  in  the  years  1798,  and  1801. 

Several  circumftances  occurred  to  lead  Mr.  Merrill,  in  the 
courfe  of  the  laft  year,  to  review,  with  more  critical  attention, 
the  grounds  on  which  he  had  praifl-ifed  infant  haptifm.  The 
refuk  of  his  inquiries  may  be  learned  from  the  preceding 
Sermons  on  Baptifm,  and  from  the  following  account  of  his 
baptifm,  &c. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  church  (or  covenanted  brethren)  Feb. 
28,  1805,  they  voted  unanimouily  to  fend  for  a  Council  of 
Baptill  minifters  to  come  and  ailiil  them  in  the  following  par- 
ticulars, viz.  ift.  To  adminifter  Chriftian  baptifm  to  them  ; 
2d.  To  conftitute  tiiem  into  a  church  upon  the  primitive 
Baptift  platform  ;  3d.  To  fet  over  them  in  the  Lord  the 
Rev.  Daniel  Merrill,  to  be  their  miniller. 

Agreeably  to  their  requeft,  Melfrs.  Pitman  of  Providence, 
Baldwin  of  Boflon,  and  Williams  of  Beverly,  accompanied  by 
a  number  of  brethren,  took  pafTage  at  Salem,  at  8  o'clock  on 
Thurfday  evening  the  9th  day  of  May,  inftant,  and  arrived  at 
Sedgwick  the  Saturday  following,  at  one,  P.  M.  Lord's-day, 
half  paft  10  o'clock,  Mr.  Pitman  preached  from  Ads  v.  20. 
After  an  intermilHoii  of  half  an  hour,  Mr.  Baldwin  preached 
from  I  Cor.  iii.  9.  After  another  intermiffion  of  a  few  min- 
utes, Mr.  Williams  addreifed  the  people  again  iiom  Proverbs 
sxv.  25.  At  6,  Mr.  Baldwin  preached  again  from  Solomon's 
Song,  i.   8. 

Monday,  May  12,  at  2,  P.  M.  the  Council  formed,  and  then 
adjourned  until  the  next  day.  At  3,  alTcmbled  in  the  Meet- 
ing-houfe,  and  Mr.  Wiiliams  preached  from  John  xiv.  21. 
After  which  proceeded  to  an  examination  of  the  candidates 
for  baptifm,  until  the  day  was  fpent. 

TuefJay,  13th,  examined  a  number  more  candidates.  At 
half  paft  10,  Mr.  Williams  preached  particularly  on  the  infll- 
tution,  from  Acts  ii.  41,     Immediately  after,  we  repaired  to 


94  Account  of  Sedgwick  Bapllfi  Church. 

the  water's  fide.  The  place  fixed  upon  for  the  adminiftratioa 
of  this  folemn  ordinance  was  in  the  tide  waters  of  Benjamin's 
River,  about  one  mile  from  the  fea.  \  more  beautiful  or 
convenient  place  is  fcaicely  to  be  imagined. 

The  land  adjoining  was  fufficiently  elevated  to  accommodate 
fpedators  with  the  belt  poffible  prcfped  ;  and  yet  floping  fo 
gently  to  the  margin  of  the  river,  that  thofe  at  the  fartheft 
diifance  might  lee  as  plainly  as  thofe  who  flood  nighoft. 

As  foon  as  the  people  v.'ere  aifembied  at  the  water's  fide, 
folemn  prayer  was  offered  up  to  that  God  whofe  oidinance  we 
were  goin^  to  attend.  A  profound  filence  reigned  through 
the  alTembly,  when  Mr,  Baldwin  took  Mr.  Merrill  by  the  hand, 
and  Vvalkip.g  flowly  into  the  water,  repeated  thefe  words.  And 
they  ivenl  down  both  into  the  ivater^  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch^ 
and  he  baptized  him.  When  they  had  gotten  to  a  fuitable  depth, 
the  ordinance  was  perfiirmed.  Mr.  Merrill,  rifmg  from  the 
watery  j^rave  with  a  very  pleafant,  fmiiing  countenance,  could 
not  refrain  expreffing  the  heart-felt  fatiifadion  he  enjoyed  in 
this  a<51:  of  obedience.  As  they  afceaded  out  of  the  water, 
Mr.  Will  ams  went  down  with  Mrs.  Merrill,  repeating  thefe 
words,  And  they  ivere  both  righteous  before  God.  iv ailing  in  all 
/he  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  bhimelefs.  in  this 
way  the  baptizing  v.-as  condudted,  until  all  the  candidates 
prefent  were  baptized.  Here,  we  beheld  fixty-fix  perfons 
buried  in  baplifm  by  thefe  two  adminiflrators,  in  forty-tv/o 
minutes !  The  candidates,  both  females  as  well  as  males,  de- 
fcerded  into  the  water  v-ith  the  greateft  calmnefs  imaginable  5 
and  in  general,  they  came  out  of  it  rejoicing  in  fuch  a  manner 
as  we  have  feldom  feen.  Num.bers  of  them  could  not  refrain 
giving  glory  lo  God  our  Saviour,  who  by  his  own  example 
marked  out  this  hum.ble,  blefTed  way.  i'he  fpe^ftators  behaved 
with  the  utmoll  propriety.  They  v.-ere  not  only  folemn,  but 
many  of  them  were  in  tears.  A  heart  mui.t  be  adamant  not 
to  have  fofteued  at  fach  a  moving  fcene.  The  fervlce  was- 
concluded  by  prayer  and  fmging. 

At  5  o'clock  the  people  alfembled  again  at  the  Meeting- 
houfe,    and  Mr.   Pitman  preached  to  thep^  from  John  xii.  26. 

WednefJay  morning  the  Council  me'  and  arranged  the 
buflnefs  of  the  afternoon.  Then  examined  and  baotized 
nineteen  candidates  more,  in  the  i^me  place  and  mar.urr  as 
defcnbed  above.  At  i  o'clock  affembled  again  in  the  Meet- 
ing-houfe  ;  v;hen  the  baptized  members,  having,  as  v.  c  ;  ^  pe, 
prft  given  ihemfelves  to  the  Lord,  now  gave  themfclvea  to  one 


Account  of  Sedgwick  Baptiji  Church,  95 

another  by  the  will  oi  God.  After  thus  covenanting  with 
each  other,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cafe,  by  the  appointment  of  the 
Council,  addreffed  them  in  a  few  v.'ords,  and  gave  the  right 
hand  to  them,  in  to^en  of  our  fellovvlhip  with  them  as  a  fifter 
church  of  Chrift  ;  and  by  folemn  prayer,  commended  them  to  God 
and  the  laord  of  his  grace,  which  is  able  to  build  them  up,  and  give 
then-  an  inheritance  among  all  them  that  are  far.d'ified. 

The  Council  immediately  proceeded  to  ordain  Mr.  Merrill. 

Mr.  Baldv/in  introduced   the  folemnity  by  prayer  ;  and 

then  addreiTed  the  people  in  a  well-adapted  and  very  impref- 
iive  difcourfe,  founded  on  part  of  the  3d  verfe  of  the  epiftle  of 
Jude  :  Earnejlly  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  faints* 
The  ordaining  prayer  was  made  by  the  Rev.  Elifha  Snow  of 
Thomaftown ;  the  charge,  by  the  Rev.  Abraham  Crmmings 
of  Vinal-Haven  ;  the  right  hand  of  fellowfhip,  by  thj  Rev, 
Eliflia  Williams  of  Beverly  ;  and  the  concluding  prayer,  by 
^he  Rev.  John  Pitman  of  Providence. 


MANNING  £5f  LORING,  No.  2,  CORNHILL, 

Have  for  fale,  among  a  great  variety  of  other  valuable  Books,  the 
following  interefling  Publications,  viz. 

Short  Hillory  of  the  ancient  Ifraelites  :  with  an 

account  of  their  Manners.  Cuftoms,  Law?,  Polity,  Religion, 
5e(51:s,  Arts,  and  Trades,  Divifion  of  Times,  Wars,  Captivities, 
&c.     By  Dr.  Adam  Claike.     Price  i  del.  25  cents. 

Zion's   Pilgrim.     By  Robert    Hawker,   D.    D. 

63  cents.  In  this  interefting  and  ferious  little  work,  the  fol- 
lowing fubjecls  are  evangelically  treated  in  the  way  of  narrative. 

I.  The  Moral  Man.      2.    1  he  Moral  Preacher.      3.    The 

Family  at  Prayers.  4.  The  Traveller.  5.  The  Prayer- 
Meeting.  6.  The  Poor  Man's  Experience.  7.  'the  Mournful 
Believer.  8.  The  Cries  of  Unbelief.  9.  A  Believer  under 
the  Hidings  of  God's  countenance.  10.  IheSeimon.  11. 
The  Rernaiks.  \z.  The  Dead  Child,  it,.  The  Suicide.  14. 
The  Ploughman.  15.  The  Strayed  Sheep.  16.  An  Inn. 
17.  The  Jew.  18.  The  Diary'.  19.  Market  day,  20.  The 
Grace.  21.  The  Paralytic.  22.  The  .^lable  Boy.  23.  The 
Difafter.  24.  My  Relations.  25.  The  Book.  26.  The 
Brothers.  27.  The  Houfe  of  the  Inteipreter.  28.  The  Pic- 
ture Room.     29.  Monuments.     30.,  Mottos. 


BOOKS  for  f ale  by  MAN>nNG  £if  Loring. 

Life  and   Charader  of  Mifs  Sufanna  Anthony, 

of  Newport.  Containing  Extracts  from  her  Writings.  By 
Dr.  Hopkins.      Price  75  cents. 

Romaine's  Triumphs  of  Faith,  Walk  of  Faith^ 

and  Life  of  Faith.     3  dels.  50  cents. 

An  elegant  edition  of  Mrs.  Rowe's  devout  Ex- 

ercifes  of  the  Heart,  witli  a  copperphite.     Price  i  del. 

New  Pocket  Biographical  Diclionary  :  contain- 
ing Memoirs  of  the  moll  eminent  peifons,  ancient  and  mod- 
ern, who  have  ever  adorned  this  or  any  other  country.  By  J. 
Kingfion.     Price  2  dols. 

Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  the  late 
Rev.  Cf)rne]ius  Winter.  By  the  celehratcd  William  Jay, 
Price  I  dol.  12  cts. 

God  the  Guardian  of  the  Poor,  and  the  Bank 

of  Faith  :  or,  a  Difplay  of  the  Providences  of  God,  which 
have  nt  fundry  times  attended  the  author.  Ey  William 
Huntington,  S.  S.     Price  i  dol. 

Redemption,  a  Poem  in  five  Books.     By  Jofeph 

Swain.  To  which  are  iinnexed,  ic8  Hymns  hy  the  fame 
author,  and  a  (liort  Eifay  on  Church  Fellox^.fliip  and  Social 
Re)i,g:ion.      Price  87^  cents. 

Wright's  complete  Life  of  Chrift,  of  his  Apof- 

ties,  Evangelids,  Difciples,  &c.  including  the  lives  of  John  the 
Baptill,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  many  other  eminent  perfon«, 
and  primitive  Chridians.      With  Plates.     Folio.     5  dols. 

Buck's  Treatife  on  Religious  Experience  :  in 
which  its  nati^.ro,  evidences,  and  advantages  are  confidered, 
under  tlie  following  heads,  viz  — 

The  nature  of  Religious  Experience  in  general. — The  ad- 
vantages of  Experience. — The  Young  Lhriftian's  Experience. 
— Expeiience  of  the  Chriftian  in  middle  age. — Diftreffing  Ex- 
})ericnce. — On  happy  Expeiience  — Remembrance  cA  pad  Ex- 
perience.— On  the  Relation  of  Experience. — The  Aged  Chrif- 
iHin's  Experience. — Dying  Experience. — Advice  refpecling 
Experience.     Tiie  evil  of  the  want  of  Experience,      i  doL 

^  This  work  is  recr-mmended  to  the  attentive  peruPril  of 
younjy  Chriftians  in  particular,  and  to  all  who  dehrc  inlormu- 
tion  relative  to  the  true  Chridian  Charci,51er. 

Chriftian  Memoirs  in  the  f(n*m  oi  a  New  Pil- 
grimage to  ths  Heavenly  Jerufalcm.  By  W.  Shrubfole, 
z  dole  1 2  cents. 


THE 


SECOND  EXPOSITION 


OF 


Some  of  the  falfe  Arguments,  Miftakes,  anS 
Errors 


REF.  SAMUEL  AUSTIN. 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  BENEFIT  OF  THE  PUBLIC. 


BY  DANIEn  MERRILL, 

PASTOR   OF   TUE  CHDRCH   OF   CHRIST   IN    SEDGWICK^ 


And  In  the  days  of  thefe  kings  fliall  the  God  of  heaven  fetup  a  klii^- 
dom,  which  fhall  never  be  dedroyed  :  and  the  kingdom  fhall  not  be 
left  to  other  people,  but  it  (hall  break  in  pieces  and  confums  all  thefc 
kmgdoms,  and  it  Ihall  {land  forever.  Daniel. 

Another  parable  fpakc  he  unto  them,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like 
unto  leaven,  which  a  woman  took  and  hid  in  three  meafures  of  meal, 
till  the  whole  was  leavened.  ^^aj  Ckrijl. 

Buy  the  truth,  and  fell  it  not.  Solomon, 


B  0  ST  0  A': 

Prlntea  and  fold  by  Manning  ^  Loring,  N°'  2,  Comhill 

1807, 


District  of  Massachusetts^  to  wit : 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,That  on  the  twenty-fixth  day  of  June,  in  the 
thirty- firlt  year  of  the  independence  of  tlie  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, Manning  tf  Loring,  of  the  faid  diftridt,  have  depofited  in  this 
office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors, 
in  the  words  following,  to  'wit : — "  The  Second  Eypofition  of  fome  of 
the  falfe  Arguments,  Miftakes,  and  Errors  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Auftin. 
Publifhed  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Public.  By  D.iniel  Merrill,  Pallor 
of  the  Church  of  Chrifl  in  Sedgwick." 

In  conformity  to  the  A6t  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  A*5l  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
inch  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  :"  and  alfo  to  an  A(9-, 
entitled,  •'  An  A<51  fupplementary  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  An  Adl  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and 
books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  copies,  during  the  times 
therein  mentioned ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of 
defigning,  engraving,  &nd  etching  hlflorical  and  other  prints." 

WILLIAM  S.  SHAW,  Clerk  of  ih«  Di/iria  tf  Majacbufdts. 


To  the  Reader, 


DEAR    FRIEND, 


To  the  carelefs  finnery  and  to  the  ind'Amt  and 
erroneous  faint  ^  I  appear  a  fool ;  and  the  prefefit  controverfyy 
efpccially  on  my  fide^  to  he  needlefs  and  luithout  profit.  But 
it  luill  he  foon  known y  that  more  is  depending  on  it  than  are 
all  the  treafurei  of  the  Indiesy  or  than  the  pleafures  of  time. 
It  has  heen  Satan^ s  fuhiilty^  from  the  heginning,  io  lead  men 
from  God's  inftitutionu  A  compliance  with  this  fubtilty  war 
the  Jin  of  our  fifl  parents,  and  ruined  our  race,  A  compli- 
ance ivith  this  provoked  God  to  cajl  the  ten  trihes  as  cut  of 
his  fight,  A  neglect  of  the  Lord^s  ordinances  carried  the 
Jews  into  the  Babylonfh  captivity  for  feventy  years.  For 
the  fame  profanation  of  the  Lord^s  ordinances,  they  are  noiu 
a  taunty  a  bye-wordy  and  a  curfe,  among  all  nations.  A 
compliance  with  the  fame  device  of  Satan  produced  Antichrif^ 
and  Jiill  upholds  him. 

The  devil  is  the  fame  deceiver  now  that  he  was  nearly  fix 
thoufand  years  ago.  He  then  reprefented  fin  as  a  pleafant 
thing,  and  the  way  to  wifdom.  Jujl  fo  now.  Thofe,  who 
in  any  and  every  age  have  confidered  the  pfitive  injlitutions 
cf  the  Lord  to  he  of  very  facred  importance,  have  heen  called 
by  perhaps  every  name  luhich  the  malice  of  Satan  could  invent, 
Thefe  ill  names  and  reproaches  arejlill  the  lot  offuch  as  keep 
the  ordinances  as  Chrijl  delivered  them.  What  falfehcods 
have  heen  wickedly  circulated  agalnfl  the  Author  of  thefe 
pages  !  How  many,  from  luhom  we  might  have  expedled 
better  things,  have  faid,  Report,  and  lue  will  report  it  ! 

Kind  reader,  I  kno  w  hut  one  thing  which  the  public  can 
lay  to  my  charge,  and  it  is  this  : — /  am  jealous  for  the  honour 
of  Jefus,  the  King  of  the  Gentiles  (is  well  as  jews.  I  plead 
for  obedience  to  his  injlitutions  aftd  ordinances.  I  plead  againfl 
thfe  who  would  and  do  corrupt  them.  I  plead  againft  the 
prief  and  people  who  difohey  my  King.     I  plead  with  argu- 


TO    THE    READER, 


ments  Jo  plaitiy  that  a  child  may  underjlnnd.  I  plead  the 
plain  nvcrdi  the  open  luord,  the  unadulterated  word  of 
Gcdy  as  my  defence.  I  have  injured  no  man  in  this  matter^ 
ciherivife  than  I  have  charged  guilt  upon  the  corrupters  of 
God^s  word.  My  opponents  defpife  me^  but  the  Lord  will 
rebuhe  them.  It  is  bis  caufe  which  1  defend.  He  will  one 
day  plead  my  cauje^  and  put  my  enemies  to  fhame.  I  have^ 
and  do  fUll^  wilUngh  hear  reproach  for  Jefus^  fake.  I 
heartily  commiferate  the  cafe  of  thofe  wh9  are  on  the  oppofite 
ftde,      I  fee  their  end  coming  :  it  may  not  be  far  off. 

Reader f  IfraeVs  defpifing  Elijah  did  not  fave  them  ;  Ju- 
dah's  fitting  Jere7niah  at  nought  did  not  fave  them  ;  nor  will 
it  avail  the  oppofers  to  fet  at  nought  the  baptized  church,  with 
their  leaders. 

Reader,  if  I  be  a  real  ChrifHan,  I  am  a  real  Baptifl,  and 
the  Lord  huth  made  me  both.  If  I  he  a  Chriflian,  then  in 
the  fincerity  of  my  hearty  I  befeech  thee  to  ir.quire  for  the 
order  of  Chri/l's  houfe,  as  for  thy  life,  for  it  is  for  thy  life  ; 
for  others  luill  fon  receive  of  the  plagues  of  Antichrif, 
When  you  fl:>all  fee,  in  the  following  pages,  with  what  J  a  If e 
arguments,  mifakes,  and  errors,  Air.  A.  hath  laboured  to 
defend  his  fide,  I  pray  thee  afk  thy f elf  this  quejlion, — Can 
the  caufe  of  truth  thus  labour,  and  need  fuch  means  of  defence^ 
in  the  hands  of  an  able  difputant  ?  The  reafon  why  Mr,  A, 
hath  fo  committed  himfelf  is  not  becaufe  he  is  unable  to  argue 
well  in  a  goad  cafe,  but  on  account  of  his  having  undertaken 
to  defend  a  bad  one. 

I  now  cotnmit  the  matter  to  God  and  to  the  reader'* s  hefi 
judgment,  praying  the  Father  of  Lights  to  fend  forth  light 
and  truth y  and  fpeedily  fubdue  the  world  unto  himfelf 

With  good  will  to  all  men, 

I  am  the  reader  s  friend, 

THE  AUTHOR. 

Sescwicx,  Avcv9T  IX,  iSc^t 


Second  Expofition,  ^x. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible ^  to  Jlubborn  facts^  and  to 
common  fenfe. 


TO  ALL  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN. 

MEN,    BRETHREN,  AND   FATHERS, 

IVIy  public  writings  are  ilill  attended  with  a 
feries  of  pain  and  pleafure.  It  is  painful  to  me  to  contra^^ 
did  men  of  education,  talents,  and  refpedability,  and  to  be 
contradidled  by  them,  as  has  been  the  cafe,  and  probably 
will  be  for  the  prefent.  But  it  is  pleafing,  tliat  God,  who 
feparated  me  from  my  mother's  womb,  hath  called  me,  not 
only  to  the  knowledge  of  his  word  generally,  but  to  know 
the  order  of  his  houfe,  and  to  defend  it. 

I  am  very  little  difappointed  at  the  reception  which  my 
writings  receive  :  for  when  God  taught  me  to  difcover  the 
blinduefs  and  errors  in  which  I  and  my  brethren  were,  I 
faw  dire<^ly  that  my  repentance  and  reformation  would 
bring  an  army  of  oppofers  :  for  the  moment  in  which  I 
condemned  myfelf,  I  condemned  them  ;  and  when  I  for-» 
fook  my  evil  practices,  I  pradically  condemned  thofe  who 
continued  in  them. 

My  Lord  and  Mafter  was  called  Beelzebub,  and  his  firft 
apoftles  were  faid  to  be  mad.  I  calculated  to  partake  of 
4bme  of  the  fame  kind  of  ufage.  That  many  of  the  wicked 
oppofe  me,  is  not  ftrange  ;  that  hypocritical  fcribes  and 
phaiifees  oppofe  me,  is  no  caufe  of  wonder;  that  good 
men,  who  have  not  light  and  refoiution  fuificient  to  re- 
nounce their  educational  prejudices,  Ihould  oppofe  me,  is 
nothing  more  than  might  have  been  expe*^ed,  nor  is  this 
different  from  what  was  expeded  j   but;  that  good  men 


6  Second  Expoftlion  of 

fnould  life  the  artillery  of  the  wicked,  and  defend  their 
errors  by  fophiftrr,  and  1  might  almofl  fay  by  deception, 
is  not  what  I  fo  fully  expected  as  I  find  to  be  true.  Nor 
was  I  fully  apprifed,  that  good  men  would  treat  me  wich 
all  that  contempt  with  which  the  men  of  Succoth  did  Gid- 
eon, and  Nabal  the  fervants  of  David.  But  I  find  feme 
are  difpofed  much  the  fame  way.  I  have  no  difpofition  to 
teach  them,  with  the  thorns  and  briars  of  the  wlldernefs, 
nor  with  the  fword  of  fteel  :  but  I  truft  in  the  God  of 
Ifrael,  that  the  day  is  not  far  off,  when  they  fhall  be  taught 
by  the  fword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  oi  God  ;  and 
when  they  fliall  be  willing  to  hear,  and  fhall  treat  with  more 
refpeft  and  much  lefs  rudenefs,  fuch  as  would  indrufl  them. 

Ivlr.  Samuel  Auftin  I  confider  to  be  one  of  thefe  good 
men.  He  is  impatient  of  contradiflion,  and  has  informed 
the  world  that  he  hath  clofed  his  public  correfpondence 
with  me  ;  yet  my  pen  muft  expofe  his  errors,  and  the  public 
muft  hear  it.  At  the  fam.e  time,  I  pray  the  Lord  that  not 
a  fentence  may  efcape  my  pen,  which  fhall  give  either  him 
or  his  brethren  needlefs  pain.  It  is  alfo  my  defire,  that  1 
may  never  withhold  a  truth  which  the  caufe  of  Chrill:  lliall 
require  me  tt)  make  public.  It  is  truth,  plain  truth,  on 
w^hich  I  depend,  for  the  fupport  of  Chrift's  caufe;  which  I 
hope  is  my  caufe.  I  Ihall  not  ridicule  Mr.  A.,  nor  fhall  I 
attempt  to  defpife  him,  or  fpare  him  out  of  pity  ;*  nsr  do 
I  afk  him  ever  to  fpare  me  again,  becaufe  he  fo  pities  my 
v/eaknefs  that  he  will  not  fully  expofe  the  nakednefs  of  the  land, 
I  afk  no  favour,  in  this  way,  from  Mr.  A.,  nor  from  any 
other  man.  Let  truth  be  defended,  let  truth  be  thoroughly 
defended,  though  *  appear  a  fool. 

i  can  with  fome  degree  of  fincerity  fay,  I  pity  Mr.  A.  ; 
yet  1  pity  the  fufFering  caufe  of  truth  more.  It  is  my  fet- 
tled judgment,  that  he  thinketh  himfelf  to  be  doing  God 
jervicc,  in  his  oppofition  to  the  caufe  of  the  Son  ot  God. 
It  will,  no  doubt,  wound  his  feelings,  when  1  fliall  prove 
him  guilty  of  fophiftry,  and  miilakes,  and  mifreprefenta- 
tions,  in  his  zealous  labours  for  the  caufe  of  error;  but  I 
muft  confider  his  feelings  as  he  alfo  may  foon  confider 
them,  of  very  little  worth,  when  they  are  to  be  woundad 
or  truth  given  up. 

I  Ihall  not  mention  every  miftake  and  error  which  are 
found  in  his  Letters  ;  but  fhall  endeavour  to  give  fuch  an 
account  of  them  generally,  that  the  reader  may  noi,  unleft 

*  Sec  Mr-  Auflin's  Letter*,  p.  20,  4,  3. 


Mr.  Aujlin's  MiJ}akes.  7 

lie  lovf^  d.iikncfs  rather  thvm  liglit,  be  ftambled  in  them. 
It  mii^ht  not  be  nec'eflary  to  make  any  reply,  were  it  not 
tirat  m  his  title  pag«  he  promifed  to  do  fometliing,  and 
I'onie  ot"  his  readers  might  rake  it  for  granted  that  he  had, 
uiilefs  his  falle  arguments,  his  weak  arguments,  his  millakes, 
milVeprefentations,  &.c.  were  cxpcfed.  This  I  Ihall  now  do. 
but  previoufly,  it  may  be  well  to  noie,  that  Mr.  A.  is  on 
the  retreat ;  for  he  concedes, 

1.  That  fprinkiing  is  not  buptifm  ;  or,  that  he  is  unable 
to  prove  it  to  be  fo.  His  words  are,  page  8,  "  Neither 
have  I  faid  that  fpr inkling  is  baptifm.  Here,  again,  is 
untairnefs.  Where  is  quotation  ?"  I  will  furnilh  him  with 
more  than  one.  Says  Mr.  A.  in  his  firit  pamphlet  to  me, 
page  46,  "  VvHiy  may  it  (external  bapuifm)  not  as  well  be 
by  aiTufion  or  fprmkUng  F''  Again,  page  ioo,  fivshe,  "We 
deny  that  inimerfion  is  any  more  baptifm  ihnn  JprlnU'mg  or 
pouring."  My  oblervation  upon  this  is,  When  a  good  man 
iiath  repeatedly  aei'/ocated  a  certain  tenet,  and  afterv.'ards, 

lis  having  fpoken  in  its  fa- 
it ;  and  if  he  be  horriil,  be 
mud  be  difpofed  to  reliuquiih  it,  when  he  charges  his  Op- 
ponent  with  unfairnefs  for  placing  it  to  his  account. 

2.  He  concedes,  that  pcedobaptifm  hath  no  martyrs  to 
witnefs  for  it.  Page  15,  he  fays,  "  By  confefTors,  you 
rnean  fuch  as  have  fufiered  maiLyrdom  for  the  doclrine  of 
pasdobapt'fm.  I  never  pretended  we  had  any.  What  the 
reafons  are  that  we  have  none,  I  may  not  be  able  to  aingn.'* 
The  reafons  are  very  plain.  Pasdc  baptifm  was  appointed 
by  iTien,  not  by  the  Lord  ;  and  it  was  appointed  for  men, 
not  for  the  Lord  ;  for  worldly,  fuperfiitious  men  too,  and 
for  fuperftitious  purpofes.  Thefe  are  reafons  enough  why 
God  never  fufiered  any  of  his  friends  to  die  in  the  defence 
ot  it. 

The  public  (hall  now  be  prefented  with  a  ftw  famples  oi 
Mr.  A.'s  falfe  argumentations  or  fcphifms. 

I.  Says  he,  pages  10,  ir,  '■^  Peter,  influenced  by  his 
carnal  pre'judiciSy  tliought  he  muft  by  no  means  come  unto 
one  of  another  nation,  becaufe  they  were  not  of  the  cir- 
cumcifion  ;  but  it  was  told  him,  What  God  hath  cleanfecl 
tliat  call  not  thou  common,  'i  he  character  of  Cornelius, 
if  we  are  to  be  governed  by  the  decifion  of  God,  was  a  full 
warrant  for  Peter  to  hold  communion  with  him  ;  and  it 
would  feem,  though  he  had  this  ground  only  for  it,  he  hav- 
ing not  yet  been  baptized,  had  he  refufed  he  would  have 
wichilood  God  :    for  he  favs,   «  Forafmuch  then,   as   God 


8  Second  Expofition  of 

o-avc  thern  the  like  gift  that  he  did  unto  us,  what  was  I 
that  1  could  withi^and  God.'  So  it  is  apprehended,  that 
the  allowed  facft,  that  God  hath  cleanled  this  multitude  of 
pious  perfons  (juil  mentioned)  and  fealed  them  as  his,  with 
the  like  gift  of  the  Holy  Gholf  which  he  hath  beilowed  on 
)ou,  obliges  you  not  to  treat  them  as  common  or  unclean.'* 
Mr.  A.'s  argument,  in  plain  Englifh,  is  this : — Peter 
would  have  wlthltood  God,  had  he  not  h:ive  had  commu- 
nion with  the  devout  Cornelius,  v.-ho  had  received  the  Holy 
Ghoft  ;  and  h.id  he  not  baptized  him,  feeing  he  received 
the  word  gladly^  and  was  a  qualified  fubjedl  for  the  ordi- 
nance. Therefore,  and  what  ?  This,  Th^  Baptllls  lutthjland 
Gody  by  refujlrig  to  ccrnrr.une  at  the  I^ord^s  table  iv'ith  thofe  nvho 
are  not  labt'ized.  This  is  one  of  the  fir  ft  rate  of  fophifms. 
Peter  would  have  withftood  God,  had  he  refufed  to  have 
baptized  believing  Cornelias  ;  therefore,  the  baptized  church 
v.irhrtar.d  God,  bccaufe  they  lefufe  to  commune  with  un- 
b:iptized  perfons.  Peter's  commitfion  and  orders  were  to 
baptize  thofe  who  believed,  therefore  he  would  have  with- 
ftood God  had  he  refufed.  The  Baptifts  have  no  commif- 
llon,  order,  or  liberty  from  God,  to  commune  at  the  Lord's 
table  w4th  any  till  they  are  baptized,  yet  th:y  iv'ithjland  God 
'if  they  refufe.  Into  what  abfurdity  do  Mr.  A.'s  errors  drive 
him  !  But  lays  he,  •'  Pious  perfons  having  received  the  like 
girt  of  the  Holy  Ghoif ,  obliges  the  Baptifts  not  to  treat 
them  as  common  or  unclean."  Certainly,  and  we  do  not. 
\v  e  fpeak  unto  tliem  the  good  word  of  the  Lord,  and  invite 
them  to  fcruike  the  papiftical  errors  of  fprinkling  and  infant 
baptifm  ;  and  when  they,  Cornelius  like,  will  hear  whatfo- 
ever  the  Lord  faith  unto  them,  we. gladly  commune  with 
them  in  bo:h  the  ordinances,  and  in  God's  appointed  way 
ICG  :  firft  in  baptifm,  then  in  the  fupper. 

2.  Ihe  next  *\\V^  -.'rg-'-nent  or  fophifm  of  his  v.hlch  I 
fiiall  mention,  is  the  anfwer  to  the  queftion  which  I  put  to 
him,  in  the  words  f^Uovang  : — Suppofe  there  be  a  refor- 
mation at  this  prelent  time  in  Worceftf  r,  where  you  refide. 
Suppoie  fifiv  p-eribns  of  the  brighteft  talents  be  converted. 
Not  one  of  them  has  been  baptized,  or  even  fo  n)uch  as 
fprinkled.  I  providentially  ride  th.rough  the  town  next 
v.eek  ;  by  chance  I  meet  ^i^.  A.  in  the  ilreet,  and  put  this 
queftion — Have  thole  very  refpeclable  chara^fters,  who  have 
of  late  been  hopefully  converted,  joined  the  church  (mean- 
ing  the  vifible  church)  ?  The  fophiftry  is  in  his  anfwer, 
page  14.  His  anfwer  is,  "Yes.  What!  become  con- 
vened to  Chrift,  ^iVid  yet  not  join  his  kingdom  ?'*     Here 


Mr,  Aujiin's  Mijiakcs,  9 

he  tells  me  and  the  public  that  his  anfwer  Is  yes ;  whereas, 
if  I  cm  underftand  any  thing  by  what  he  fays,  he  has  given 
no  anfwer  to  the  queition,  but  has  anfwered  another,  which 
I  put  not.  The  queftion  propofed  was,  Have  thefe  con- 
verted unbaptized  perfons  joined  the  church,  the  vifibls 
church  ?  Yes,  fays  Mr.  A.  they  have  joined  Chriii's  king- 
dom. Yes  ;  but  this  is  not  the  queftion.  The  quellion  is. 
Have  they  joined  the  vifible  church  of  Chrlft  ?  Yes,  fays 
he,  they  have  joined  his  kingdom.  If  I  comprehend  Mr. 
A.  this  is  Iheer  fophiilry  and  evafion,  and  manifefls  that 
the  place  is  too  ftrait  for  him.  If  they  have  joined  th* 
vifible  church,  why  do  he  and  his  brethren  converfe  with 
them,  in  order  to  their  joining  ?  Have  Mr.  A.  and  his 
brethren  been  idling  with  all  the  perfons  whom  they  have 
profeffedly  admitted  into  the  vifible  church  ?  and  does  he 
fuppofe  that  his  brethren,  through  the  Chriftian  world, 
have  been  merely  playing  with  folemn  things,  when  they 
have  publickly  received  vifible  converts  into  the  vifible 
church  ?  Not  a  cliild  in  Worcefter,  cf  ten  years  old,  but 
can  at  once  anfwer  the  queftion,  which  Mr.  A.  appears  un» 
willing  to  folve.  Indeed,  it  is  a  difficult  one  for  him  :  for 
if  he  fay  no,  it  fpoils  his  argument  for  communion  with 
unbaptized  perfons  ;  if  he  fay  yes,  that  they  have  joined 
the  vifible  church,  then  he  is  contrary  from  all  men  of 
whom  I  have  ever  before  heard  or  read.  Bcfules,  he  would 
be  fubjedi  to  another  difficulty ;  perhaps  not  0^2  in  ten 
thoiifand,  if  one  in  the  world,  will  believe  him  :  even  chiK 
dren  know  better.  Indeed,  the  time  fpoken  of  by  the 
prophet  is  come,  when  children  ihould  rule  the  pr ofefTed 
people  of  God.  I  am  forry  to  fay  thus  of  Mr.  A.,  for  I 
believe  him  a  valuable  man  in  many  refpeds  ;  but  his  good 
things  mud  not  fan<5lion  his  bad  ones.  When  he  employs 
his  time  and  talents  to  defend  Antichrift's  ordinances  and 
church  order^  he  muft  be  expofed  and  rebuked  Itarply, 
that  he  may  be  found  in  the  faitii. 

3.    We  will  nov/  attend  to  another  of  Mr.  A.'s  fophifms^ 
by  which  he  overturns  his  whole  fcheme. 

His  fcheme  or  notion  is,  tliat  the  being  bom  again,  and 
efpecially  its  being  known,  conftitutes  perfons  members  of 
the  vifible  church.  For,  page  14,  he  fays,  *♦  What  !  be- 
come converted  to  Chrift,  and  not  join  his  kingdom  ?" 
intending  the  vifible  church,  unlefs  he  meant  to  evade. 
But  now  we  fhall  fee  him,  in  contradiction  to  himfelf, 
plead  with  his  full  ftrength  againft  it ;  or  otherwife,  he  is 
purpofely  keeping  the  fubjed  in  debate  out  of  fight, 
B-  2. 


lo  Second  Expcfition  of 

We  will  hear  what  he  fays.  In  page  ic2,  of  his  Sift 
I.etters,  his  words  are,  "  Whatever  be  defigned  by  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  whatever  is  to  be  underllood  here, 
by  being  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  both  are  necef- 
fary,  as  pre-requihtes  to  a  perfon's  entering  into  this  king- 
dom. 1'he  biith  goes  before  the  entrance""  To  this,  in 
my  Letters  to  him,  page  73,  my  anfwer  is.  If  you  will  be 
kind  enough  to  inform  the  public,  for  hov>r  long  a  time  a 
perfon  raurt  be  born  before  he  enters  into  the  world,  then 
they  will  poflefs  a  necelfary  datum  to  underftand  your  new 
doctrine,  that  tlie  birch  gops  before  the  entrance.  In  reply 
to  this,  fays  Mr.  A.  page  26,  *'  Is  regeneration  then,  in  all 
cafes,  an  entrance  into  glory  ?"  Here  he  lliifts  the  fubjetfl 
wiiich  is  debating.  I  was  not  fpeaking  of  the  kingdom  of 
glory,  but  of  the  vlfible  kingdom  of  Chrift.  Here  he  takes 
for  granted  what  I  have  no  difpofition  to  deny  ;  and  then 
would  have  the  pubic  believe,  what  he  is  unable  to  prove, 
that  the-  being  born  of  water,  or  that  baptifm,  is  not  the 
entrance  into  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrill.  He  takes  for 
granted,  that  regeneration  is  not.  In  all  cafes,  an  entrance 
into  glory.  Very  well ;  no  perfon  faid  it  was :  but  his 
argument,  or  conclufion,  is  what  I  diHike.  His  argument, 
in  Ihort,  is  this  ;  Regeneration  is  not  an  entrance  into  glo- 
ry ;  therefore,  baptifm  is  not  an  -entrance  into  the  vifible 
church.  Such  an  -.irgument  as  this,  proves  nothing  to  any 
man's  advaritage  :  it  is  a  mere  fophifm. 

I  will  here,  that  every  thing  may  be  perfedly  plain,  pre- 
sent with  exadnefs  my  fentiments  on  this  fubjed. 

Firil,  Regeneration,  or  the  new  birth,  is  an  entrance  into 
the  fpiritual,  or  what  is  ufually  termed  the  invifible,  king- 
dom of  L'hrift. 

Secondly,  The  being  born  of  water,  or  baptifm,  is  an 
entrance,  or  the  entrance,  into  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift. 

Thirdly,  Dying  in  Chrijl  is  the  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  glory. 

Now,  it  is  the  entrance  into  this  fecond  kingdom,  the  vifi- 
ble kingdom  of  Chrift,  which  is  the  fubjed  of  controverly. 

We  fhall  now  (how  that  Mr.  A.  has  changed  the  fub- 
jert,  or  otherwife  is  chargeable  with  felf-contradiflion  ;  he 
H'iil  acknowledge  which  he  pleafes.  If  he  have  changed 
the  fubje(5t,  and  proved  what  is  not  controverted,  and  then 
taken  for  granted  the  fubjeft  of  debate,  he  is  chargeable 
with  fophirtry,  or  falfe  and  difingenuous  argumentation. 
If  he  have  not  changed  the  fubjed,  but  intends  the  vifible 
Hngdom  of  Chrift,  then  he  is  guilty  of  felf-contradidion. 


Mr.  Aujiuii   Miftakes.  i  \ 

as  will  now  appear.  Page  26,  he  fays,  the  words  of  Chrlft 
are,  *  Except  a  man  be  bom  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Now,  fays  he, 
**  Let  us  apply  this  mode  of  expreflion  to  a  famihar  eafe. 
King  Ahafuerus  makes  a  banquet  for  queen  Ellher,  and 
invites  Haman.  He  orders  Haman  to  be  told,  that  except 
he  is  habited  in  white,  he  cannot  enter  in  to  the  banquet. 
Haman  puts  on  white  clothing  accordingly.  Now,  fays 
Mr.  A.,  is  Haman's  clothing  himfelf  in  white,  before  he 
enters  in  to  the  banquet,  preparatory  to  it,  or  the  entrance 
itfelf?'^ 

By  the  illullration  in  this  his  f^imiliar  cafe,  he  tells  us,  if 
there  be  any  meaning  in  it,  that  to  be  born  again,  or  con- 
verted to  Chrift,  is  not  the  entrance  into  the  vifible  king- 
dom of  Chrift,  but  preparatory  to  it.  But  in  page  14,  in 
anfwer  to  a  difficult  queRion  which  I  propofed  to  him,  he 
told  us  that  it  is  the  entrance  ;  not  only  fo,  but  he  tells  us 
that  he  hath  the  apoftles  with  him  in  the  matter.  I  pre- 
fume  he  will  not  tell  us  that  the  apodles  are  with  him  on 
both  fides  of  the  contradidion.  I  do  not  fo  much  blame 
Mr.  A.  for  contradiding  himfelf,  as  I  do  for  his  continuing 
to  travel  in  that  crooked  path,  in  which  no  man  can  go 
ilraight. 

The  above  may  ^^rve  as  f  imples  of  Mr.  A.'s  fophifms, 
or  falfe  arguments.  I  agree  to  prefent  more  of  them,  and 
t©  Ihow  that  his  reply  to  my  Letters  is  little  elfe  but  one 
continued  fophifm,  fhould  the  public  good  demand  it,  and 
the  Lord  give  me  opportunity. 

The  public  fhall  now  be  prefented  with  a  few  of  his 
weak  arguments,  and  he  appears  to  have  none  but  of  this 
defcription. 

I.  The  fir  ft  weak  argument  which  I  fhall  mention,  is  In 
page  32  ;  and  it  is  given  the  public  in  order  to  deftroy  the 
natural  argument  for  immerfion  which  we  have  in  Mark 
i.  5.  from  the  force  of  the  word  in.  The  text  is  this,  *  And 
there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of 
Jerufalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of 
Jordan.'  The  common  fenfe  cf  this  text  is,  that  they  were 
immerfed,  or  buried  in  baptifm.  But  to  fet  this  natural 
and  fcriptural  argument  alide,  Mr.  A.  prefents  the  public 
with  the  following  argument.  '<  I  have  (fays  he)  a  Bible 
pretty  full  cf  plates  ;  in  one  of  them  referring  to  this  tranf- 
a(^ion,  the  Bapti ft  and  the  Saviour  are  reprefented  as  ftand- 
ing  in  the  margin  of  the  ftream,  to  a  depth  a  little  above 
their  ankles,  and  John  is  pouring  water  from  his  hand  on 


12  Second  Expofit'ion  of 

the  he.id  of  the  Saviour."  Had  Mr.  A.  have  added,  that 
this  phite  of  his  was  inferted  in  his  Bible  by  the  dire<5lion 
of  the  pope,  on  purpofe  to  deceive  thofe  who  regard  pic- 
tures more  than  they  do  Avords,  very  few  of  his  readers 
would  probably  have  been  deceived  by  it. 

2.  Another  of  Mr.  A.'s  weak  arguments  is  found  in 
page  13  ;  it  is  againft  what  is  called  clofe  communion,  and 
in  the  words  following  : — "  O  thou  fpirit  of  Brainerd,  reft- 
ing  in  the  bofom  of  thy  much-beloved  Jefus,  dod  thou  wit- 
nefs  the  fentence  which  has  been  pafTed  upon  thee  by  one 
of  thy  fellov/  difciples  in  this  world  ?  Doft  thou  hear  what 
is  faid  of  thee  among  men,  that  when  with  them,  even 
when  thou  didft  drain  the  energies  of  thy  nature  in  impor- 
tunate prayer,  and  in  incellant  labours  for  the  converfion 
of  poor  heathens,  thou  waft  \\>thout,  where  are  dogs,  and 
forcerers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers  ?'* 

What  a  pity  Mr.  A.  had  not  have  told  us  one  thing 
more,  and  have  proved  it  to  us,  that  the  amiable  and  pious 
David  Brainerd  was  a  perfetft  man,  and  could  not  err  ; 
then  his  argument  would  have  had  force,  and  we  fhould 
have  concluded  that  he  walked  in  all  the  ftatutes  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Lord  blamelefs ;  then  to  have  known  his 
practice  would  have  been  the  fame  as  to  have  known  the 
word  of  God  and  our  duty.  Till  Mr.  A.  fhall  prove  this 
much  needed  point,  his  argument  muft  ftand  for  a  iveak 
^ne ;  for  it  is  nothing  to  the  prefent  bufmefs  to  know  what 
Mr.  Brainerd  did  or  did  not,  as  to  divine  inftitutioiis,  ualefs 
it  be  firft  proved  that  he  could  not  err. 

3.  But  Mr.  A.  has  another  argument,  page  21,  which 
beggars  both  thefe ;  it  is  upon  the  fame  fubjecfl  with  the 
preceding  argument,  againft  clofe  communion,  or  againft 
my  arguments  for  it,  and  to  deftroy  them  all  at  one  ftroke. 
His  words  are,  "  About  a  year  ago,  I  was  at  the  houfe  of 
a  minifter  in  this  county,  and  the  converfation  turning 
upon  the  exceilive  vociferation  which  fome  men  pradtife  in 
prayer,  the  lady  of  the  houfe  obferved,  that  a  fliort  time 
before  a  Baptiil:  miniiler  called  upon  them,  and  received 
hofpitality  for  the  night.  According  to  the  orders  of  the 
houfe,  the  minifter  being  abfent,  he  was  reqr.efted  to  lead 
the  family  in  prayer.  He  did  fo ;  but  it  was  with  fuch  a 
ftraining  of  the  voice  as  fairly  ftunned  the  family,  and 
fpoiled  dieir  devotions.  Having  fat  a  little  while  after  the 
conclufion  of  the  prayer,  the  lady  took  the  liberty  to  a(k 
him,  Why,  Sir,  do  you  halloa  fo  in  prayer  ?  Do  you  im- 
agine the  Divine  Being  is  a  great  way  off  ?    He  replied. 


Mr.   AuJlhCs  Mijlakes,  1 3 

that  he  had  got  into  the  habit,  and  had  nor,  indeed,  much 
to  lay  lor  it ;  but,  in  fact,  it  was  every  thing  to  him,  for  if 
he  did  not  pray  in  that  founding  manner,  his  people  would 
not  think  it  was  praying  at  all.'^ 

This  is,  I  confefs,  a  lingular  argument  ;  but  how  it 
ftrikes  againft  dole  communion,  I  have  not  ingenuity  fuffi- 
cient  to  difcover  ;  for  furely  this  Baptift  minifter  was  for 
open  communion,  whiift  the  good  lady  and  her  family  op- 
poled  it.  \^''hy  Mr.  A.  fhould  tell  fuch  a  foolifli  and  im- 
probable ftory  as  this,  is  doubtlefs  beft  known  to  himfelf. 
However,  1  will  venture  to  expofe  one  of  his  reafons,  and 
it  is  this, — To  gratify  not  a  very  good  difpofition,  in  ridi- 
culing the  Baptifts.  Yet,  as  ridiculous  as  they  arc,  he 
confciTes  his  principal  objedlicn  agalnft  them  is,  their  refuf- 
ing  to  commune  with  him  in  the  fecond  gofpel  ordinance, 
whilH  he  rejects  the  firft.  This  reafon  is  not  given  in  his 
identical  words,  but  I  venture  to  propofe  it  to  the  public, 
as  being  fupported  as  his  by  facts  and  common  fenfe. 

'we  Ihall  now  turn  our  attention  to  a  few  of  Mr,  A.'s 
miltakes ;  by  thefe,  as  well  as  by  his  fophiflry  and  weak 
arguments,  we  may  judge  of  the  papiftical  errors  which  he 
hath  undertaken  to  defend.  I  do  not  fay,  that  by  the  mif- 
takes  we  m.ay  judge  of  the  man,  for  fhould  we,  I  apprehend 
we  fhould  do  him  great  injuUice,  for  the  man  is  honoura- 
ble ;  but  his  caufe  and  errors,  which  are  now  finking,  are 
deteftable,  and  his  defence  of  them  miferable.  To  be  fure, 
the  m.an  liimlelf  appears  to  difadvantage,  whilft  defending 
fo  bad  a  caufe  ;  and  the  many  miftakes  which  he  is  obliged 
to  make,  whilH:  labouring  to  defend  fo  crooked  a  fide,  mull 
excite  fome  unfavourable  fentiments  in  thofe  to  whom  he 
is  unknown.  But  if  he  Riffer  a  little,  better  fo  than  to  have 
his  errors  pafs  without  correclion  ;  indeed,  dcftruction  is 
the  deferved  portion  of  his  errors  :  we  mull  therefore  op- 
pofe  fome  of  his  miftakes. 

I.  The  firil  miflake  which  I  fhall  mention,  is  in  his 
reply  to  the  following  requelf,  v/hich  I  made  in  the  17th 
page  of  my  Letters  to  him,  and  in  thefe  words  : — Should 
you  write  again,  pleafe  to  inform  me  by  what  authority 
you  contradid  the  tranflators  of  the  Bible,  and  injure  tlie 
lenfe  of  this  text,  (A<51s  xvi.  31.)  by  telling  us,  that  the 
jailor  rejoiced  domellically  ?  His  reply  is,  page  6,  "  Is  this 
Chriilian  treatment,  to  charge  me  with  contradiding  the 
tranflators  ?  I  have  not  done  it."  To  fettle  this  matter,  I 
will  prefent  the  reader  with  the  words  in  quellion,  both  as 
given  us  by  the  tranflators  and  by  Mr.  A- 


14  Second  Expofition  rf    ^ 

Traiifliitors  riy,  "  He  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with 
all  his  houie.'* 

Mr.  A.  fays,  p?ige  87,  the  proper  rendering  is,  "  He, 
having  believed  in  God,  rejoiced  with  all  his  houle,  or 
domelticall)'.'' 

Here,  the  tranflators  fay  cne  things  Mr.  A.  fays  the proptr 
rendering  h  another.  The  reader  will  judge  whether  Mr.  A. 
does  not  ctntradict  them  ;  and  if  he  does,  this  is  one  mriiakc. 
But  Mr.  A.  has  found  a  new  turn  to  the  original  Greek 
participle  for  believing.  In  his  former  Letters,  he  told  me 
it  was  in  the  fmgular  number ;  in  my  Reply  I  obferved, 
every  Englifh  reader,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  coniViTic- 
tion  of  language,  knows  it  is  the  fume  in  our  common 
Bibles  ;  but  now  he  has  difcovered  it  to  be  in  the  perfecl: 
tenfe,  therefore,  and  v\'hat  ?  therefore,  fays  he,  it  ferves  to 
refcue  the  text  from  your  prefumptuoiis  comments.  I  will 
give  the  public  the  text,  with  Mr.  A.'s  participle  rendered 
literally  in  the  perfect  time  ;  it  ftands  thus  : — He  (the 
jailor)  rejoiced,  having  helU'csd  in  God  with  all  liis  houfe. 
I  afk,  what  advantage  is  Mr.  A.*s  new  difcovery  to  blm  ? 
and  how  does  it  refcue  the  text  from  my  prefumptuous 
comments  ?  AH  my  comments  are,  that  the  Bible  fpeaks 
plain  Englifh,  and  is  to  be  taken  as  it  fays.  I  appeal  to 
the  world,  to  judge  whofe  comments  are  prefumptuous  ; 
mine,  for  taking  the  Bible  as  it  fays,  or  his,  for  changing 
both  words  and  iQi\\^.  But  Mr.  A.  replies,  "  Your  pre- 
fumptuous comments  are  calculated  to  make  your  unlearn* 
ed  readers  conclude,  that  the  jailor's  houfchold  are  faid  to 
be  believers  as  well  as  himfelf.''  My  anfwer  is,  the  tranf- 
lators of  the  Bible  tell  us  that  this  is  tlie  cafe,  and  is  the 
fenfe  of  the  original;  and  Mr.  A.  fays  he  has  not  contir.- 
dicled  them..  '1  hen  my  comments  are  juil,  and  calculated 
to  make  my  unlearned  readers,  and  learned  too,  conclude 
juftly,  that  the  jailor  believed  and  all  his  houfe. 

2.  I  will  now  prefent  the  reader  with  three  or  four  of 
Mr.  A.'s  miftakes,  which  he  makes  in  writing  lefs  than  a 
page.     In  pages  8,  9,  he  quotes  three  of  my  definitions. 

Firil:,  Im.merfion  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  or  in 
the  name  of  the  P'atLer,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  is  the  only 
gofpel  baptifm* 

Secondly,  No  perfon  has  a  right  to  gofpel  baptifm,  but 
upon  his  making  profeiTion  of  gofpel  faith. 

rhirdly,  No  perfon  is  a  member  of  Chrid's  vifible  church 
till  he  is  baptized. 


Mt\  Aujiin's  Mifiakes.  15 

To  thefe  Mr.  A.  replies  tluis ; — "  Thefe  fentlments,  I 
faui,  and  you  are  not  alliamed  to  avow  the  confequence, 
go  to  exclude  from  ChriiVs  vilible  church  all  the  multitude 
of  eminently  pious  and  holy  perfons,  male  and  female,  who 
have  lived  and  died  the  fubjeds  of  baptifm  by  fprinkling 
or  afFufion  only,  and  merely  becaufe  they  have  not  been 
baptized  by  immerfion.  This  was  my  leading  objedion, 
and  you  appear  to  totter  under  the  weight  of  it.  It  is 
ftrange  it  does  not  cridJJj  you  to  the  ground.  I  Jhould  think 
any  man,  who  had  made  fuch  a  conqueft  over  his  preju- 
dices, could  not  have  this  army  of  co-heirs  with  Chrift  of 
eternal  bleffednefs  pafs  before  his  imagination,  after  having 
treated  them  in  this  cavalier  v/ay,  nv'ithout  Jinking  as  loiv  as 
the  mojl  feeling  felf-detejlation  cov.ld place  him.  You  fay,  *  If  it 
be  conclufive  againft  my  principles,  let  it  deftroy  them.* 
It  does^  Sir,  deftroy  them.  Let  it  but  touch  them,  and  they  vanifu 
like  a  bubble.'' 

All  this  fays  Mr.  A.  We  will  attend  to  his  variety  of 
miftakes  in  this  quotation.  The  fidl  is,  That  J  appear  to 
totter  under  vhe  iveight  of  his  obfliion.  His  obje<5lion  is, 
that  my  principles  go  to  exclude  from  Chriil's  'vifdle  church 
all  who  are  not  baptized,  or  immerfed,  in  the  name,  &c. 
This  is  his  objeciion,  under  which  he  lays  1  appear  to  totter. 
This  is  his  m'fale.  For  the  avowing  of  this  truth,  fo  far 
from  making  me  tott^r^  it  emboldens  me  to  tell  him  another, 
That  all  who  hold  to  and  receive  the  human  rite  of  fprink- 
ling, for  the  Lord's  ordinance  of  baptifm,  are  witliin  the 
limits  of  Antichrift's  church,  and  have  fubmitted  to  liis 
ordinance,  and  received  one  mark  of  the  Beaft.  Did  Mr.  A, 
know  his  duty  and  his  privilege,  he  would  come  out  from 
his  errors,  and  efpeclally  from  this,  and  be  feparate  ;  then 
would  the  Lord  receive  him  into  his  vifible  churcli. 

But  Mr.  A.  adds,  "  It  is  (Irange  my  obje(51Ion  does  not 
cruili  you  to  the  ground."  This  is  ariother  of  his  niifi:akes. 
For  ic  is  not  ftrange  at  all ;  for  the  good  word  of  God 
fupports  me,  by  bearing  its  teftimony  in  favour  of  the  cor- 
rcdnefs  of  my  principles.  The  Lord  tells  \\^^  that  l^e  hath 
1  know  not  how  many  pious,  godly  perfons  within  the 
limits  of  Antichrift  ;  befides,  he  points  cut  the  time  in 
which  they  would  be  within  thefe  limits,  and  informs  us 
tliat  this  is  the  time.  See  Rev.  xvii.  xviiiT  xix.  xx.  and 
particularly  chap,  xviii.  4.  v/here  he,  by  a  voice  as  from 
heaven,  calls  to  thefe  perfons,  faying,  *  Come  out  of  her, 
my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  fuis,  and  that 
ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues.'     Did  Mr.  A.  know  what 


1 6  Second  Expqfition  of 

he  is  doing,  he  would  be  ailonillied  and  confouRded.  lie 
is  himfelf  refunng  to  obey  the  Lord  ;  and  not  only  fo,  he 
IS  ignorantly  doing  what  he  can  to  blind  others,  fo  that 
they  alfo  may  be  difobedient.  This  is  a  great  miftake  in 
him.  He  may  think  me  bold  ;  I  am  fo,  and  truth  makes 
me  {o  ;  yes,  and  the  time  is  come,  in  which  the  children  of 
God,  who  know  the  truth,  may  be  bold.  For  the  leaven, 
which  Tv'as  to  leaven  the  whole  lump,  is  remarkably  fer- 
menting ;  and  the  time  is  not  far  off,  when  the  dominion, 
and  the  greatnefs  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven, 
fliould  be  given  co  God's  people.  The  ftone  cut  from  the 
mountain  without  hands,  will  foon  fill  tlie  w^hole  earth. 
At  fuch  a  time,  and  thus  circumilanced,  fuch  as  know  the 
figns  of  the  times,  may  be  bold  to  vindicate  the  »ways  of 
God  to  men,  and  to  affert  the  laivs^  ordinances^  and  rightful 
authority  of  their  King. 

Another  miftake.  which  Mr.  A.  makes  in  the  above 
quotation,  is,  that  his  objedion  deftroys  my  principles. 
Again,  in  the  clofe  of  the  pafTage,  he  fays,  "  Let  it  but 
touch  them,  and  they  vanifh  like  a  bubble."  This  is  all 
miftake.  The  good  man  knows  not  what  he  fays,  nor 
whereof  he  affirms. 

One  fentence,  which  I  have  not  yet  noticed,  deferves 
particular  attention.  *^  J  JhouU  think  (fays  he)  any  man^ 
ivho  had  made  fuch  a  conquefl  over  his  prejudices,  could  not  have 
this  army  of  co-heirs  tviih  Chrijl  of  eternal  hlejftdnefs  pafs  before 
his  imagination,  after  having  treated  them  in  this  cavalier  luay, 
without  finking  as  low  as  the  mof  feeling  felfdetejlation  could 
place  him.''^ 

I  forgive  Mr.  A.  all  his  rudenefs  of  fpeech,  perceiving 
he  hath  a  zeal  for  God,  but  in  this  particular  not  accord- 
ing to  knowledge.  He  fuppofes  that  he  is  with  the  truth  ; 
but,  as  his  brother  Emmons  informs  us,  luhen  a  man  comes 
to  the  truth,  he  KNoirs  it.  Can  he  fuppoie,  that  I  (hould 
deteft  myfelf  for  telling'  him  the  truth,  and  for  placing 
many  cf  the  Lord's  people  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift, 
when  the  Lord  tells  me  they  are  there,  and  commands  them  to 
come  out  ?  Befides,  who  knows  but  God  hath  chofen  me,  to 
be  one  of  the  weak  inftruments,  by  which  his  people  Ihall 
fo  effedually  hear  his  voice  as  to  be  obedient  ?  However 
this  may  be,  one  thing  I  know — it  becomes  me  to  declare 
his  truth,  and  not  be  afraid.     May  Mr.  A.  hear  and  obey. 

3.  I  muft  nov/  mention  another  of  his  miftakco,  which 
is  alfo  conne^flcd  with  u  fophifm. 


Mr.  AujTtn*s  Miftakes.  17 

I  do  not  expofe  Mr.  A.  that  I  may  provoke  him,  unlefs 
it  be  to  relinquifh  a  bad  cauie ;  but  that  he  may  lee  \s'hat 
abfurdities  and  blunders  It  unavoidably  leads  him  into,  and 
thus  be  perfuaded  to  give  truth  one  candid  review.  Mr. 
A.  has  abilities  enough  to  go  ftraight  in  a  plain  highway, 
but  no  man  has  a  lufficiency  to  go  thus  in  a  crooked  path. 

This  miftake  and  fophlfm  of  his  are  in  page  12,  where 
his  words  to  me  are,  "  You  fay,  page  20,  one  of  our  prin- 
ciples is,  that  no  perfon  is  a  fit  fubject  of  baptifm,  unlefs  he 
be  a  penitent  \  if  it  is,  (fays  he)  the  greater  is  your  error  ; 
but  I  do  not  believe  it  is :  it  was  not  Dr.  Gill's  principle." 
This  is  Mr.  A.'s  miftake ;  for  there  is  not  a  Baptift  in  the 
world,  nor  has  been,  who  has  any  principles  upon  the  fub- 
je<Sl,  but  this  is  one  of  them,  that  no  perfon  is  2ijit  fuhjecl  of 
baptifm  unlefs  he  be  a  penitent.  Had  Mr.  A.  have  known 
the  gofpel  fitnefs  for  baptifm,  he  would  have  known  this 
with  equal  certainty  that  he  knows  an  hypocrite  is  not  a  fit 
fubjecl  for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table.  Befides,  his 
argument  to  prove  that  Dr.  Gill  did  not  hold  this  principle 
is  a  mere  fophlfm,  and  proves  no  fach  thing.  If  Dr.  Gill 
exprefsly  fays,  as  Mr.  A.  informs  us,  "  that  Simon  Magus 
was  baptized  In  a  pure  and  apoJlrAic  ^<ayy*'  this  is  no  evi- 
dence that  he  was  a  fit  fubjecl.  Simon  Magus  was  bap:iz.ed 
upon  a  profejfion  of  faith  ;  this  was  the  pure  and  apoilolic 
way  ;  yet  he  was  not  a  fit  fubject,  he  only  appeared  to  be. 
The  adminiftrator  was  but  a  man,  and  was  therefore  obli- 
ged to  judge  from  what  was  vifible.  Could  the  adniinif- 
trator  have  feen  Simon's  true  character,  he  would  have 
known  him  to  be  not  a  fit  fubjecl.  The  admlniftrator's  not 
difcovering  this  unfitnefs,  did  not  change  Simon's  hypocrisy 
into  gofpel  fitnefs  for  baptifm  ;  yet,  as  Simon  made  pro- 
felllon  of  faith,  and  appeared  to  polfsfs  it,  he  was  baptized 
m  the  pure  and  apoftolic  way. 

4.  Mr.  A.  in  the  fame  page,  gives  us  another  of  his 
miltakes.  Says  he,  "  Be  tliis  (about  Simon)  however  as 
it  may  ;  one  of  your  principles  is,  that  no  perfon  is  a 
member  of  Chrift's  church  till  he  is  baptized.  This  re- 
duces you  to  the  necefllty  of  contending,  that  there  may  be 
millions  of  vifible  Chriftians,  eminently  fuch,  who  are  nut 
in  Chrift's  vifible  church.  One  would  fuppofe  beforehand, 
that  a  man  rauft  be  put  to  it  excefilvely  to  maintain  fuch  a 
/entlment  as  this."  To  be  fure,  fuch  as  judge  beforehand^ 
fuch  as  judge  of  a  matter  before  they  hear  it,  might  fuppofe  a 
man  put  to  it  exceflively,  to  maintain,  that  there  may  be 
c 


1 8  Second  Expofition  cf 

millions  oi  vlfible  Chriftians,  eminently  fuch,  who  are  not 
in  Chrid's  vifible  church.  But  when  one  comes  to  hear 
the  matter,  and  finds  this  was  to  be  the  cafe,  that  manv 
were,  at  fuch  a  time  as  this,  to  be  found,  not  only  out  of 
Chrift's  vifible  church,  but  within  the  limits  of  Antichrili's, 
and  efpecially  when  one  comes  to  hear  the  Lord  calling 
this  multitude  out  of  her,  he  no  longer  fuppofes  the  man 
holding  this  principle  muft  be  put  to  it  excelTively  ;  but  he 
knows  the  opponents  have  an  hard  fide  to  defend,  and  that 
they  muft  make  many  mifiakes. 

5.  We  will  therefore  attend  to  another  of  Mr.  A.'s  mif- 
takes.  Says  he,  pages  16,  1 7,  a  man  "  may  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  vifible  church,  yet  he  may  know  that  he  is  a 
finner  and  needs  forgivenefs.  He  may  be  acquainted  with 
Chrift,  and  the  way  of  falvation  through  him,  and  believe  to 
the  faving  of  his  foul.  This  may  be  known  to  hundreds  of 
Chriftians,  at  a  diftance.  He  may,  of  courfe,  be  a  member 
of  the  vifible  church  :  for  a  man's  vifibility  refpeBs  'what  he  is 
in  the  eyes  of  others.  Would  he  iiot  be  a  member  of  the  lyifible 
churchi  if  he  were  baptized  F  If  he  "jjouU,  then  the  fuppofed 
dt^iCuhyy  from  his Jliuation,  is  no  difficulty  at  all.^^ 

Here  Mr.  A.  gives  up  and  condemns  his  whole  fcheme, 
and  then  adds  a  great  miftake  at  the  clofe.  The  reader 
will  bear  in  mind,  that  Mr.  A.'s  fcheme  is,  that  when  a 
man  is  converted  he  belongs  to  the  vifible  church;  for  he 
fays,  pa-ge  14,  "What!  be  converted  to  Chrift,  and  not 
join  his  kingdom  ?"  as  he  explains  himfelf,  What !  become 
converted  to  Chrift,  and  not,  at  the  fame  time,  become  a 
member  of  his  vifible  church?  But  here,  ke  tells  us.  That 
the  converfon  of  an  heathen  being  hnoivn  to  others^  is  fivhat  con- 
Jlitutes  him  a  member  of  the  vifible  church.  To  Ihow  Mr.  A. 
that  by  labouring  to  extricate  himfelf  from  one  perplexing 
cafe,  he  ha6  involved  himfelf  in  another  of  equal  difficulty, 
I  will  propofe  for  his  confideration  this  queftion  : — Suppofe 
no  Chriftian  knew  of  this  heathen  man's  converfion,  would 
he  then  belong  to  the  vifible  church  t  If  he  anfwer,  Yes, 
then  he  contradidls  what  he  has  juft  faid,  that  a  man^s  viji^ 
bility  refpeds  ivhat  he  is  in  the  eyes  of  others.  If  he  fay.  No, 
then  he  gives  up  his  fcheme,  that  a  converfion  of  a  perfon 
conflitutes  him  a  member  of  the  vifible  church.  Mr.  A.  is  in  a 
perplexing  cafe.  But  we  wttl  fee  his  miftake  at  the  clofe. 
«  Would  he  not  (fays  he)  be  a  member  of  the  vifible 
church,  if  he  were  baptized  ?"  To  be  fure,  if  he  were  bap- 
tized he  would  be  a  member  of  the  vifible  church  ;  for 
^ofpel  baptifm  is  the  very  thing  which  conftitutcs  him  a 


Mr,  Aujiin's  Mijlakes.  19 

member.  Now,  fays  Mr.  A.  "  If  he  >\^ould,  then  the  fup- 
pofed  difficulty,  from  his  fitiiation,  Is  no  difficulty  at  all." 
That  is,  if  a  converted  heathen,  who  is  favoured  with  an 
adminiftrator,  baptized,  and  thus  received  into  the  vifible 
church,  would  be  a  member  of  it,  then  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  fuppofmg  him  a  member  of  the  vifible  church,  though 
he  has  never  been  thus  favoured,  nor  ever  admitted  into  it. 
In  what  confufion  are  Mr.  A.'s  ideas !  Ihe  fault,  however, 
is  not  his  deficiency  of  talents,  but  in  the  miferably  errone- 
ous caufe  he  is  defending. 

6.  But  I  haften  to  another  of  Mr.  A.'s  miftakes.  In 
my  Letters  to  him,  page  38,  my  w^ords  are, — All  your 
objc<fl:ion  againft  allowing  that  the  apoille  (in  Rom.  vi.  4. 
and  Col.  ii.  12.)  alludes  to  and  intends  water  baptifm,  is 
confidered  to  ariie  from  an  apprehenfion  that  immerfion 
would  certainly  follow.  His  reply  is,  page  33,  "  You  muft 
confider  it  fo,  if  you  will ;  but  my  apprehenfion  really  has 
another  origin.  It  is,  that  an  infuperable  objedion  vrould 
be  fuiniflied  agn in fc  the  apoille's  infpiration  ;  for  then  he 
would  teach  us,  that  water  baptifm,  inftead  of  the  baptifm 
of  the  Hcly  Ghoft^  is  the  thing  by  which  we  become  dead 
to  f  n  and  rife  |o  newrefs  of  life." 

Here  Mr.  A.  is  again  in  difficulty.  His  dimcuky  arifts 
from  a  mi  (lake  which  he  has  made.  I  will  endeavour  10 
expofe  the  one,  and  thus  help  him  out  of  the  other.  His 
miftake  is,  that  we  fhould  endanger  the  Infpiration  of  the 
iipoftle,  did  we  not  believe  that  we  become  dead  to  fm  and 
rife  to  newnefs  of  life  by  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
The  faift  is,  Mr.  x^.  has  wholly  miftaken  the  fcriptures,  in 
this  matter.  Tliey  fay  nothing  about  a  perfon's  becoming 
dead  to  fm,  or  rinng  to  newnefs  of  life,  by  the  baptifm  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  nor  by  w^ater  baptifm,  otherwife  than  by 
a  figure.  This  expofes  his  mnfiake,  and  opens  the  door  for 
him  to  leave  his  difficulty,  if  he  chocfe.  For  furely,  eur 
not  believing  contrary  from  the  fcriptures,  but  believing 
them  as  they  are.  can  furnifli  no  infuperable  objeaion,  ncr 
an  objedion  of  any  other  kind,  againfl  the  mfpiration  of 
the  apoftle,* 

*  This  miftake  of  Mr.  A.\  he  might  receive  from  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Parifti,  of  Byefiekl,  whofe  ftrong  party  Sermon  was  founded  upon  the 
fame  mifiake,  J^et  the  reader  but  be  delivered  from  this  new  notion, 
that  pcrfons  arc  born  again  by  being  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and 
he  at  once  fees  through  the  fallacy  anddifcovers  the  profound  weaknefs 
of  what  Mr.  P.  fo  fmartly  faid  againft  the  Baptifts,  in  his  Sermon  of 
May  laft.     The  author  ha»  fallen  into  the  vtry  miilake  to  ^whicb  he 


20  Second  Expofttion  j)f 

^'.  I  vyjll  now  prefent  the  public  with  an  whole  clufter 
of  Mr.  A  's  mi  Hakes,  and  they  may  be  taken  as  a  fpecimcn 
of  aii  the  remainder  ;  afurwards  ibme  of  his  mifreprefenta- 
tions  will  be  noticed.  This  group  of  miftakes  is  in  his 
47th  page.     In  the  firft  place,  I  will  prefent  this  bundle  of 

ionfuiercd  the  Baptifts,  on  account  of  their  eitreme  ipnorancc,  to  be 
much  cxpufcd.  He  has,  fo  an  irircmmcn  degree,  mifapplicd  one  of  the 
f.gures  of  infpiration.  He  has  been  kird  enough  to  inform  us,  that 
Ipiritual  baptilm,  or  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  is  the  new  birih, 
ov  regenen.tirn  \  but  hr.  lot  furnifhcd  his  authority.  He  tells  us  that 
the  te:.i  means  this.  We  ileny  ihat  the  text, or  hat  any  other  text  in  the 
Bible,  has  eviT  faid  sny  fuch  hing.  How  are  we  buried  ivith  Cbtiji  in 
t-ptifm,  or  taipd  ivith  him  in  bapifm,  in  the  moment  of  regeneration, 
any  more  then  n  every  fuccecding  holy  exerciie  ?  This  is  a  new  invcn« 
tlon  of  his  and  his  brethren,  to  ge    rid  of  the  gofpel  baptifm. 

Tht  old  Pcmanifts  confidered  ivatcr  beptifm  to  be  n-^enerntion,  or  the 
latter  to  he  cor:  c-dled  with  the  former,  or  to  depend  on  it;  fo  that, 
when  baptism  was  performed,  regentraricn  was  effected.  So  have  the 
Cliurth  of  Fnglarjd  confidered  this  matter.  But,  if  I  miflahe  not,  no 
avthor,  till  Mr.  P.  and  Tome  of  his  hiethren,  to  juilify  rhcir  unfcriptural 
rite  of  fprJnkli'ng,  and  to  take  from,  che  ha]  tized  churcli  the  plain  fcrip- 
turc  account  of  go'pei  hrptifm,  arofe,  hav  ever  pretended  that  regeneia- 
t  on  is  the  baj)tifm  of  the  Holy  Gho.l.  The  fiible  mentions  nothing  of 
their  forced  ccnftru(5ion  of  the  figurative  language  of  infpiration.  The 
krip:ure  account  is  totally  diff'-rtnt  from  Mr.  P.'s.  That  informs  us, 
Ads  i.  5  that  the  difclples,  who  had  Jt  ng  before  followed  their  divine 
Lord  in  the  re^cn.rct  oTt,  fnouj'd  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghofl  not 
m^ny  c  lys  bc7icr.  Mr.  P.  muft  either  conclude,  that  prrfons  in  the  days 
of  ChriR  and  ]:is  Jpr flies  v.'cre  legcnerattd  twice,  or  that  the  baptiim 
of  the  Koly  Ghoil  i.s  n*  w  a  different  thing  from  whi^t  it  then  vras ;  or 
th.'.t  rpg*r.eratic;n  is  not  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofl;  and  cciifequenthy 
that  a  litt!e  Trior e  erudition  is  ntctjfur-^  to  his  explaining  tl>€  bold  Jtgures  of 
Tii-elati^,n 

But  to  fpoil  Mr  P  's  whole  fuppoftd  Hrength  at  a  flroke,  let  the 
reader  but  view  hi?  tcntraft.  It  is  this — '*  As  the  hrrial  (  f  J#i"us  Chrifl 
g:?.ve  evidence  that  he  had  really  died,  the  jbft  for  tJvc  unj^ift  ;  fo  we,  in 
oi:r  fpiritual  baptifm^  fh.ow  curi'tUes  to  be  really  dead  tc  f.n." 

Mr    t'.  (.on\i^i-M(,i,vr  equals fpiriti'ci  baptifm\\'\ihrget:criJt:cn,\igt  13T, 

cf  the  CoUe<5:ion.  "f  hrn  wt  will  take  regeneration  inftend  of  fpiritual 
baptifm,  and  fee  how  his  contrail  w"ll  fiand  the  teft  <ifcrijture  and  his 
own  ftPtiments  *'  As  the  burial  of  Jefus  Chrifl  gave  evidence  that  he 
had  really  died,  the  jnfl  for  the  vnjuft ;  fo  we,  in  regeneration,  ihow 
ourfelves  to  he  really  dead  to  fin." 

The  fcrip'urcs  fay,  The  wind  blowcth  where  it  hfleth,  2nd  thou 
hcareft  the  found  thereof,  but  card  not  tcil  whence  it  cometh  nor 
V.  hither  it  goeth  :  fo  is  ev  ry  oriC  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.  Enng  forth 
fruits  meet  for  rcpfntjnce,  cr  aj  evidence  of  repentance.  By  their  iru:ts 
ye  fhall  know  tli«m,  8^c.  In  thefe  texts,  nor.in  any  other,  is  there  any 
jitimztii.n,  th.- 1  in  rcgcneratirn  we  fhow  ourfclvis  to  be  dead  to  fni ; 
but  tliut  this  is  n:ade  vifible  by  the  fruits  of  regeneration,  or  by  the 
adi«M.s  of  the  now  creatL're  ;  but  not  by  the  operation  of  the  Spirit;  »n 
which  he  ift  regenerated 


Mr.  Atijin's  Mijlakes,  2r 

ini flake?  entire  ;  then  expcfe  them  one  br  one.     Mr.  A. 
intioduces  and  prefents  them  in  the  follovving  manner. 

"  In  page  74,  to  my  argumtnt  (lays  he)  Ircm  your  fup- 
pcied  opinion,  that  many  dying  in  infancy  are  iaved,  you 
reply  in  this  manner  : — '  Perhaps  your  idea  is  this,   That  I 

If  I  underflard  Mr.  P.'s  fcntiments,  they  are, — i.  That  a  natural  man 
hath  rot  cne  fpiritually  good  thought,  a.  That  regeneration  is  cifedcd 
by  the  fpecial  agency  of  tlie  Holy  Ghoft.  3.  That  the  manifeji  exerdfes 
of  the  ne\r  creature  are  the  natural  confequcnces  of  regeneration^  but  are 
not  themfclves  regeneration. 

Thefe  being  his  feBtimcnt*,  then  his  contrafl  is  at  war  with  them,  as 
well  as  with  the  Bible  :  for  we  do  not,  in  regeneration,  fhow  ourfelves 
dead  to  fin  ;  but  in  the  confequent  a<5ls  or  fraits  of  it,  we  fnow  this. 

If  thcfe  cbfervaticns  be  juft,  Mr.  P.  had  been  more  prudent  had  he 
kept  his  Sermon  to  himrelf,  and  exprefied  lefs  fear  lefl  the/>cor,  ignorant, 
and  illittrate  Baptifts  fhould  greatly  injure  the  caufe  of  Chrift,  by  rr/tf- 
applications  o{  fcripture  jigures- 

But  Mr,  p.  in  his  note,  pages  145,  144,  hath  manifefled  his  mind  to 
fee  fo  crowded  with  oppcnition  to  the  baptized  church,  as  to  deprive  him 
©f  his  ufual  fprightlinefs  of  recclledion.  Thus  it  hath  happened  to  him, 
to  is  common  to  thofe  who  arc  over  zealous  ;  they  betray  thcm.felveg, 
rather  than  foil  their  cpponei;ts.  As  Mr.  P,  harh,  with  no  fniali  rude- 
nefs,  espofed  him.felf,  be  cannot  jullly  take  it  unkindly  to  have  his  note 
increafe  its  publicity.  I  fhall  take  hberty  to  tranfcribe  a  few  ftntences, 
of  which  I  ftiould  have  thought  Mr.  P.  incapable,  fhould  he  publickly 
deny  their  being  his,  and  prove  his  innocency,  then  will  they  be  taken 
from  his  account.  But  they  look  fo  like  other  parts  of  his  Sermon^ 
proof  might  be  difficult,  unlefs  he  deny  the  whole. 

Says  he,  '■  Pnvbably  the  'Baptift)  denomination  have  received  fome 
advantage,  in  :l.e  courfc  of  a  century  or  two,  from  a  few  folitary  con- 
gregational preachers  joining  them,  who  had  received  diplomas  from 
fom.e  college.  This  mufl,  however,  be  one  of  their  minor  advantages  ; 
for  when  was  it  known  that  the  dijlinguifced  members  of  a  party  defgrted  t 
Men^  ccnfciius  of  their  inferiority  to  their  brethren  in  literature  a!;d  talent/, 
have  a  pczverful  temptation  to  apo/iatize,  where  their  relative  great nep 
Vfi.l  be  advanced." 

A  few  queflloiis  for  the  reader.  * 

r.  Could  Mr.  P.  had  not  his  recolkcftlon  been  left,  but  have  called  t© 
mind,  that  the  very  ap  oiile  who  wrote  liis  text,  was  one  of  thefe  dcfertert  f 

2.  Did  not  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  Peter,  James,  and  Jude, 
all  of  them,  defert  their  party,  the  Jewiih  church,  and  join  the  Chriftian  ? 

3.  Did  not  Martin  Luther  and  John  Calvin  defert  their  party,  the 
judaized  and  Judaizing  church  of  Rome  .? 

4.  Did  net  all  the  celebrated  reformers  of  the  reformed  church  defert 
their  party,  and  come  out,  in  meafure,  from  the  man  of  fin  ? 

5.  Did  not  all  the  leaders  of  the  Congre^atioiial  and  Prefbyterian 
denominations  when  they  broke  off  from  t]ie  Church  of  Lnglacd,  or 
from  the  communion  of  the  Pepifts,  defert  their  party  ? 

6.  Weri.  none  of  thefe,  diftinguifheu  member j  of  ths  p»rty  >vh<:r.c'' 
they  broke  off? 

C    2 


^z  Second  Expojltion  of 

believe  feme  Infants,  who  have  not  been  immerfcd,  HTny  gc 
to  heaven,  and  be  finally  favcd.  This,  Sir,  I  do  believe- 
But  what  hath  this  to  d^^.  wirh  the  prefcnt  controverfy  r' 
It  hath  this  to  do  vith  it,  Sir  ;  it  entirely  rehires  your 
hypotheAs  You  liave  no  fwarrant  to  believe  any  human 
b/ing  is  faved,  who  is  nrt  to  you  a  v'Jibh  n.emltr  of  the  hwg- 
dom  of  Chn/l.  This  is  ihe  force  of  the  arginrunt^  which  yoil 
have  not  noticed  at  all.  Your  notion  of  holding  people  to 
be  good  per  pie,  and  heirs  of  glory,  who  have  no  vifible 
place  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  an  outrage  upon  common 
fenfe,  and  a  contradiction  to  the  whole  Bible.  You  exclude 
all  infants,  without  exception,  from  this  vifible  kingdom  ; 
tlie  confeqiience  is,  that  no  warrant  remains  for  you  to 
confider  any  of  them  a?  faved.  All  the  heirs  of  falvation 
are  fpoken.  of  as  being  fuch  vifibiy  in  this  world.  Ifalah 
hi.  9.  And  their  {qq^  Ihall  be  known  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  their  offspring  among  the  people  :  all  that  fee  them 
fhall  acknowledge  them,  that  they  are  the  feed  which  the 
Lord  hath  bleifed.  Hundreds  of  other  texts  there  are  to 
the  fame  purpofe.** 

The  reader  v.ill  particularly  notice  my  words,  which 
gave  ocaifion  to  Mr.  A.  to  make  the  miftakes  which  follow. 
My  words  are,  I  believe  ibme  infants,  who  have  not  beea 
inimerfed,  may  go  to  heaven  and  be  finally  laved.  I  then 
afk,  But  what  hath  this  to  do  with  the  prefent  controverfy  ? 
His  reply  is.  "  It  hath  ihis  to  do  with  it ;  it  entirely  refutes 
your  hypothefis."  Tne  reader  (hali  knov.-  my  hypothefis ; 
it  is  this — No  unbaptized  perfon  beloxigs  to  the  vfihlc  church 
cf  Ci:rift.  This  hypothefis,  fays  he,  is  entirely  refuted  by 
allowing,  that  fome  children,  who  have  not  been  baptized^ 
ex  immerfed,  and  fo  not  in  Chrifl's  'vifihk  church,  may  be 
finally  faved.  If  this  femiment  refute  my  hypothefis,  then 
the  old  papiflical  notion  which  Mr.  A.  hath  adopted  is 
trac — That  none  but  church  members  can  pojfibly  be  faved.  This 
is  one  (if  his  miftukes. 

Aeain,  he  fays,  "  You  have  no  ivcrrani  to  believe,  that 
any  human  being  is  faved,  who  is  not  to  you  a  vifible 

7  Did  not  Mr  P.  in  his  zeal,  fo  for^^et  himfelf,  as  to  denounce  all 
iho  famous  lejtler^  of  his  own  and  of  all  other  denominations,  that  h« 
Blight,  r.ot  ill  a  very  becoming  manner,  aim  his  unkind  (hafts  againft  -i. 
few  folitary  Congregational  preachers,  who  have,  to  anfwer  a  good 
onfcience,  dared  to  renounce  the  traditions  of  aien,  that  they  might 
keep  the  comiraTidpicnts  of  the  Lord  1 

I  IhaH  now  have  Mr.  P.  to  his  own  refl^AioBs,  and  tlie  public  tc 
form  their  own  judgment,  upon  fucli  jsvana^emcnt  as  liia. 


Mr,  Aujihis  Mijiakes.  23 

member  of  the  kingdom  of  Chrift."  I  will  here  prefent 
iTiV  wairant.  G<^d  tells  me,  Rev.  xviil.  4.  that  he  hath 
people  witliin  the  limits  01  ylntkhriji's  church.  Thofe  who 
are  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift's  church,  are  not  to  me, 
nor  ought  they  to  be  confidered  by  aiiy,  as  members  of  the 
v^fible  church  of  Chril^.  I  have,  therefoie,  a  warrant  to 
believe  that  fome  of  thefe,  who  are  born  of  Chrill's  Spirit, 
being  within  the  limits  of  Babylon,  and  many  of  them 
living  and  dying  there,  not  only  may  be  faved,  but  mufl  be. 
This  expofes  another  of  his  miftakes. 

Again,  fays  he,  "  '1  his  is  the  force  of  the  argument, 
which  you  have  not  noticed  at  alL"  What  the  force  of 
the  argument  ?  That  none  but  vifible  church  members  can 
be  faved.  Which,  fays  he,  "  you  have  not  noticed  at  all.'* 
Then  it  Ihall  be  noticed  ;  for  it  is  one  of  the  firft-born  fons 
of  the  church  of  Rome.  The  pope,  m.oft  alfuredly,  con- 
fiders  himfelf  and  his  church  as  the  only  church  ot  Chrift, 
and  that  none  can  be  faved  cut  of  his  bounds  ;  hence  it  is 
lawful  for  him  to  kill  all  heretics,  all  who  will  not  fubmit 
to  his  holy  cathohc  church  ;  and  to  convert  by  fire  and 
fvvord,  as  for  many  ages  he  did,  the  heathen  nations  to  his. 
religion,  and  compelled  them  to  be  members  of  his  church. 
'I'hefe  violent  meafures  may  be  greatly  palliated,  if  the 
pope's  ftntiment  be  corre<^.  It  is,  however,  the  fame  with 
Mr.  A.'s.  Hence,  if  the  force  of  Mr.  A.'s  argument  Le 
allowed,  or  the  fcntiment  in  which  the  force  of  it  is,  not 
one  within  the  limits  of  Antichrifi's  kingdom,  r.ot  one  with- 
in the  Mahometan  countries.,  not  one  in  any  heathen  nation, 
can  be  faved.  No,  nor  can  one  infant,  from  Adam's  da)r 
to  our's,  have  been  faved  ;  nor  can  one  adult,  who  may 
die  at  fea,  where  there  is  no  Chriitian  to  behold  him,  nor 
one  who  may  die  in  our  own  land,  and  is  not  known  to  be 
a  Chriftian  by  others,  be  ever  faved.  For  Mr.  A.  informs 
us,  we  have  no  luarrarit  to  beheve  that  any  are  faved  who 
are  not  members  of  Chr'ijVs  vifible  church  ;  and  page  16,  he 
tells  us,  that  no  man  is  a  member  of  Chrill's  vifible  church, 
unlefs  he  is  feen  or  known  to  be  fo  by  others ;  for,  fays  he, 
*' y^  mans  vifib'iTity  refpedts  what  he  is  in  the  eyes  of  others.'* 
Hence,  if  Chrillians  do  not  know  or  confider  us  to  be  of 
their  number,  there  can  be  no  hope  of  our  falvatioa.  I 
will  confider  the  force  of  this  argument  farther,  when  he 
fhall  defire  it. 

Again,  fays  our  author,  "  Your  notion  of  holding  people 
to  be  good  people,  and  heirs  of  glory,  who  have  no  vifib/e 
place  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  an  outrage  upon  common 


2^  Second  Expofition  of 

fenfe,  and  a  contradldlion  to  the  whole  Bible.'*  That  is, 
my  notion  that  any  are  converted  before  tliey  belon;^  to  the 
'o'ifihk  church  of  ChriR:,  and  that  there  are  any  of  his  holy 
or  regenerated  people,  who  do  not  belong  to  this  church 
of  Chrift,  is  an  outrage  upon  common  fenfe,  and  a  cdntia- 
didtion  to  the  whole  BiWe.  I  venture  to  fay,  that  all  the 
genuine  common  fenfe  which  there  is  in  the  world,  will  fet 
down  this  charge  oi  Mr.  A.'s  as  one  of  his  m'tftakes.  Be- 
fides,  I  will  venture  to  fay  a  little  farther,  that  I  know  of 
no  denomination  of  profeffed  Chriflians,  in  any  part  of  the 
globe,  fave  his  holinefs  the  pope  and  his  blinded  and  big- 
goted  adheren^ts,  who  are  in  fentiment  with  Mr.  A.  Yes, 
and  the  Bible  no  where  intimates,  that  my  notion  is  errone- 
ous, or  that  his  is  corred ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  every- 
where, when  the  fubject  is  mentioned,  teftifies  that  my 
notion  is  according  to  truth,  and  that  his  is  a  miftake,  not 
to  fay  a  delufion.  The  preaching  of  John  was,  that  the 
people  fliould  repent  and  be  converted,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  the  vifible  church  of  Chrifl,  was  at  hand  ;  other- 
wife,  they  would  not  be.  prepared  to  join  it.  The  plain, 
the  fimple,  the  unequivocal  idea  is>  that  they  muft  be  con- 
verted to  God.  before  they  v.*ere  fit  fubjeds,  or  prepared  to 
join  the  vjfible  cJiurch  of  Chrift.  1  he  preaching  of  Jefus- 
Chrift  was  the  fame,  and  he  fpake  and  ftill.fpeaks  the  fame 
language.  The  broad  commiffion  vv'hich  our  Lord  gave 
his  difciples  was,  that  they  fhoiild  teach,  and  fo  teach  that" 
their  hearers  ihould  become  difciples,  believers,  and  con- 
verted perfons  ;  and  this  too  before  they  were  to  baptize 
them,  or  to  receive  them  into  the  tifibie  ohixrcn  of  Chrift.. 
Thofe  v\'ho  were  thus  converted  were,  as  we  are  told  in  the- 
A&is  of  the  Apoftles,  added  to  the  church  daily.  Befides, 
the  Bible  fpcaks  of  God's  having  people,  who  are  not  only 
out  of  Chrift*s  v'fible  church,  but  within  the  limhs  of  Anti- 
chrifi^   Kev.  xviii. 

Again,  Mr.  A.  goes  on,  and  tells  me,  faying,  "  You  ex- 
clude all  infants,  without  exception,  from  this  vifible  king- 
dom." Certainly,  and  who  told  JAm  to  put  them  in  ?  Ho 
adds,  **  The  confequence  is,  that  no  warrant  remains  for- 
you  to  confider  any  of  them  as  faved."  This  confequence. 
IS  another  oi  hi^  mi/lakes,  Theie  is  no  connexion  between 
his  premife  and  concluiion. 

Once  more,  fays  he,  "  All  the  heirs  of  falvation  are 
fpoken  of  as  being  fuch  vifibly  in  this  world."  This  alfo 
is  one  of  his  miftakes.  But  he  has  attempted  to  prove  it. 
Let  us  heiu-  his  evidence.     <*^  Ifaiah  Ixi.  9,   And  their  feed 


Mr,  Aujlin's  M {/lakes.  25 

fhall  be  known  among  tlie  GentiiCs,  and  their  offspring 
among  the  people  ;  all  that  fee  them  lliall  acknowledge 
them,  that  they  are  the  feed  which  the  Lord  hath  blefTed. 
Hundreds  of  other  texts  there  are  to  the  fame  parpofe." 
To  what  purpofe  ?  To  prove  that  none  fhall  be  faved,  but 
fuch  as  belong  to  the  vijible  church  of  Chrift  on  earth  ? 
This  text  fays  no  fuch  thing  ;  yet  he  fays,  "  Hundreds  of 
other  texts  there  are  to  the  fame  purpcfeJ^  Truly,  tJiere 
are  ;  but  ivhere  Is  there  one  to  h:s  purpofe  ?  Kot  a  fir.gle 
text,  from  Genefis  to  Revelation,  which  gives  him  the  leafl 
countenance. 

Thefe  miftakes,  which  have  been  now  mentrcned,  may 
be  taken  by  the  reader  as  a  fample  for  the  reft  ;  indeed, 
his  pamphlet  is  lilde  eife  but  on^  great  nujlahe. 

Should  Mr.  A.  take  advantage,  becaufe  I  have  not  ex- 
pofed  all  his  miilakcs,  and  hereafter  pretend  tliat  I  admit 
one  fentence  of  bis  erroneous  fbitemenis  to  be  true,  becaufe 
I  have  not  in  particular  e,\poftd  the  whole,  I  may,  if  the 
Lord  v.iil,  at  fome  future  time,  unmallc  the  reft  ;  but  for 
the  prefent  v.e  will  turn  our  attention  to  two  or  three  of 
his  mifreprefentations. 

I.  The  firft  which  I  fnall  notice  is  in  page  14,  where, 
fpeaking  of  the  vlfhle  church  of  Chriil,  his  words  are, 
♦*  Your  breaking  up  of  the  church  of  Chrifl  into  little  petty 
detachments,  and  making  it  neceifary  for  a  man  to  become 
incorporated  into  one  of  them,  in  order  to  his  being  a  mem- 
ber of  that  church,  is  unfcnptural,"  The  whole  of  this  is 
a  fheer  mifrcprefentation.  What  the  good  man  meant,  or 
can  honeftly  mean,  I  know  not.  If  he  mean,  that  it  is  un- 
fcripiural  to  hold  the  church  cf  Chrift  hath  many  brancher, 
fuch  as,  the  church  of  Corinth,  the  church  of  Ephefus,  the 
church  of  Colofle,  the  church  in  the  hcufe  of  thilemon,  &c. 
is  unfcriptuial,  then  he  would  have  us  heihve  that  the  Bills 
is  vrfcr'ipiural.  If  he  would  have  us  believe  it  to  be  un- 
fcriptural,  to  hold  that  a  perfon  muft  be  incorporated  into 
a  particular  branch  of  Chrift's  ciiurch,  in  order  to  his  being 
a  member  cf  ihat  branch,  then  he  would  teach  us  that  the 
fcriptures  are  not  crnfiftent  with  comm.on  'i^rS'^.  If  he 
intend  to  convey  to  the  public  this  idea, — that  I  make  it 
r.ccelfary  for  a  perfcn  to  be  incorporated  into  feme  partic- 
ular branch  cf  Chrift's  church,  in  order  to  his  being  ^member 
of  his  vifiLle  church,  this  is  mere  mifrcprefentation  ;  I  have 
no  fuch  fentiment  ;  I  have,  to  my  knowledge,  advocated 
nothing  which  locks  like  it.  My  fentiment  is,  that  when  a 
ptrlon  is  baptized  upon  a  prcfefTicn  of  faith  he  belongs  to 


26  Second  Expoftiion  of 

Chriil's  vifible  church.  This  is  what  I  told  him  I'n  the  2 2d 
page  of  mj  Letters  to  him.  Ke  has  either  mifieprefented 
the  fcriptures,  and  taught  us  to  believe  that  they  are  un- 
Icriptural  and  contrary  from  common  fenfe,  or  he  has  mif- 
reprefented  my  fentiment,  w  hich  I  have  publickly  and  fully 
exprelfed. 

2.  His  next  mifreprefentation  which  is  to  be  noticed,  is 
in  his  I  ith  page ;  it  is  contahied  in  his  anfwer  to  a  pafTage 
which  he  quoted  from  the  2cth  page  of  my  Letters  to  him. 
1  will  give  the  public  the  paifage,  together  with  the  re- 
mainder of  the  paragraph.  It  is  this — *  The  manner  (fay 
1  to  him.)  in  which  _y&z^  throiv  the  cbjePaon  before  tlie  public, 
has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  give  an  incautious  reader  a 
very  unjufl  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my  principles.  He 
would  naturally  enough  conclude,  that  I  muft,  if  confiftent 
with  myfelf,  believe  that  no  one  except  the  Baptiils  has 
any  religion  ;  that  I  confider  and  treat  all  others  as  being 
impenitent  and  ungodly  ;  yes,  as  being  profligate  and  unre- 
generate.  A  more  unjuft  idea  could  not  be  communicated  ; 
fuch  an  idea  is  not  only  inconfiflent  with  my  principles,  but 
they  forbid  any  perfon's  fuggefting  that  fuch  an  idea  could 
fairly  be  deduced  from  them.  One  of  our  principles  is, 
that  no  perfon  is  a  fit  fubjed  of  baptifm,  unlefs  he  be  a 
penitent,  a  godly,  a  regenerate  perfon.' 

To  this  Mr.  A.  faw  fit  to  reply,  in  the  words  following  : 
"  No,  Sir,  it  has  a  tendency  to  give  a  juji  idea  of  the  ten- 
dency of  your  principle ;  you  yourfelf  could  not  be  Mind 
to  this  tendency^  for  you  cell  it  natural.  He  would,  indeed, 
naturally  enough  conclude,  that  you  mufi,  if  confiftent  with 
yourfelf,  believe  that  none  except  the  Baptifts  have  any 
religion.''  Then,  to  complete  the  matter,  he  adds  one  c^f 
his  fophifms,  to  prove  that  he  had  done  well.  Both  his 
mifreprefentation  and  fcphifm  muft  be  here  expofed. 

"The  manner  in  which  he  threw  his  objevftion  before  the 
public  (he  fays)  has  a  tendency  to  give  a  juft  idea  of  the 
tendency  of  your  principles.  You  could  not  (continues  he) 
be  blind  to  this  tendency,  for  ycu  call  it  naturalJ'  Here  he 
pervev'ts  my  words,  and  makes  me  fiiy  jurt  what  I  der.ied,. 
or  juft  the  contrary  from  what  1  faid.  What  I  told  him 
w^as,  *'  that  the  manner  in  which  he  threw  the  chji8ion  before 
the  public,  has  a  -very  natural  tendency  to  give  an  incautious- 
reader  a  very  unjujl  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my  principles.'^ 
He  tells  the  public,  that  it  has  a  tendency  to  give  a  juJl  idea^ 
and  that  I  call  it  a  natural  tendency.  That  is,  he  tells  the 
public  Lha:  I  allow  that  the  maimer  iu  which  he  threw  tlie 


Mr.  AuJlirLS  Mijiakes,  27 

«bje6Hon  before  them  has  a  natural  tendency  to  give  a  juji 
idea  of  my  principles  ;  whereas  I  told  him  it  had  a  very 
natural  tendency  to  give  a  very  unjuji  idea  of  them.  Such 
management  will  afford  but  little  credit  even  to  a  bad 
caufe. 

But  we  will  attend  to  his  fophifm,  by  which  he  would 
prove  the  whole.  Says  he,  *♦  Nothing  i';  plainer,  than  that 
you  have  no  warrant  to  believe  a  perfon  has  any  religion 
who  has  not  the  vi/tbility  of  religionJ^  Certainly,  we  have 
no  warrant  to  believe  that  a  perfon  has  any  religion  who 
has  no  appearance  of  it.  But  what  hath  this  to  do  with 
the  prefent  debate  ?  How  does  it  prove,  that,  to  be  con- 
fiftent  with  my  principles,  I  muft  believe  that  none  has 
religion  but  the  Baptifts,  when  my  principles  are,  that  no 
one  can  honeftly  become  a  Baptift,  or  a  baptized  profefior, 
unlefs  he  be  prev'ioujly  a  pojfcjfor  of  religion.  Mr.  A.  is 
either  afraid  to  know  the  principles  of  the  Baptiil:s,  or  he 
cannot  underftand  them,  or  he  will  not ;  for  if  he  can  and 
would  know  them,  then  he  could  not  honeftly  make  fo 
many  miftakes  about  them. 

3.  I  will  mention  but  one  more  of  his  mifreprefenta- 
tions,  and  that  is  in  page  31,  in  which  he  prefents  to  the 
public  certain  fentiments,  and  reprefents  them  as  being 
mine,  whereas  they  are  fome  of  his  own,  which  I  put  to- 
gether for  his  infpedion.  He  has  infpeded  one  particular, 
and  fays  of  it  thus :  "You  make  (fays  he)  the  ftrongeft 
application  of  this  imaginable.  You  fay,  to  be  buried  with 
Chrift  in  baptifm,  to  be  planted  in  the  likenefs  of  his  death, 
and  to  be  rifen  with  him  in  baptifm,  Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and 
Col.  ii.  12.  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  exadly  coincides  with  this  rep- 
refentation."  Thefe  fentiments  are  by  no  means  mine  ;  I 
beli-eve  no  fuch  thing.  To  fhow  the  reader  Mr.  A.'s  mif- 
reprefentation,  and  that  the  ftrange  work  that  he  attributes 
to  me  is  his,  I  will  prefent  the  above  palfage  with  its  con- 
nexion, as  fet  down  in  pages  30,  31,  of  my  Letters. 

I  obferved  to  him  thus  : — ♦  Speaking  of  Kom.  vi.  4.  you 
fay,  page  45,  *'  The  fpiritual,  internal  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  exactly  coincides  with  the  whole  of  his  (the  apof- 
tle's)  reprefentation,  and  invariably  produces  the  effects  he 
mentions." 

*  In  page  48,  fpeaking  of  Col.  ii.  12.  your  words  are, 
*'  It  is  juft  like  the  other/'  i.  e.  it  is  juft  like  the  above 
palfage,  Rom.  vi.  4. 


28  Second  Expofaion  of 

*  In  the  pafTage  which  we  have  been  juft  conridern», 
pages  33,  34,  you  tell  us,  "  Water  baptifm  is  undoubtedly 
a  fymbol  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  is  a 
iigurative-baptifm  ;'*  pages  60,  61. 

*  In  page  60,  you  have  thefe  words,—"  There  mud  be 
fome  evident  likenefs  between  the  fubjed  to  which  a  word 
is  applied,  in  the  natural  and  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the 
fubje8  to  which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure  ;  otherwife  there  is 
a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe  of  it." 

*  Now,  Sir,  (faid  I)  permit  me  to  put  thefe  ideas,  con- 
ceflions,  and  declarations  of  yours  together. 

*  I.  To  be  buried  with  Cbrift  in  baptifm,  to  be  planted 
in  the  likenefs  of  his  death,  to  be  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tifm, Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  is  to  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  or  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ex- 
aftly  coincides  with  this  reprefeiitation. 

*  2.  There  is  an  evident^  likenefs  between  the  natural 
idea  of  planting,  burying,  and  rifmg  as  from  the  dead,  and 
the  figurative  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  there  is  a  grofs 
impropriety  (as  you  fay)  in  the  apoftle*s  figurative  ufe  of 
the  words. 

*  3.  Water  baptifm  is  a  fymbol  or  figure  of  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  it  is,  therefore,  a  burying,  a  planting, 
or  immerfion^  your  Letters  as  well  as  the  word  of  God 
being  judge. 

*  Hence,  Sir,  (faid  I)  by  going  a  large  di fiance  round, 
to  avoid  wliac  you  feared,  you  have  proved  to  my  hand 
what  I  endeavoured  to  eftablifh  through  the  courfe  of  five 
lermons.' 

The  reader  vill  now  judge  who  it  was  that  made  the 
Jirongejl  .ipplicat'ion  imaginable,  and  whether  it  be  not  a  mif- 
reprefentation  for  Mr.  A.  to  palm  his  erroneous  fentiments 
upon  the  pubhc  as  being  mine  ? 

But  fays  Mr.  A.  "I  obferved  to  you,  that  the  things 
compared  by  the  apoftle  were,  our  death  to  fm  with  Chrift*s 
natural  death,  our  fpiritual  burial  with  his  burial,  and  our 
rifmg  to  newnefs  of  life  with  his  refurrection.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apoftle,  the  baptifm  he  fpeaks  of  is  diftin- 
guilhable  from  the  burial,  the  latter  being  in  or  by  the 
former.  I  repeat  it,  and  beg  you  would  not  overlook  the 
diilinvftion.  I  take  thefa  things,  oiir  death,  burial,  and  ref- 
urred:4)n,  to  be  efifeifls,  and  baptifm  the  caufe." 

As  Mr.  A.  begs  me  not  to  overlook  the  diftinctlon  be- 
tween effects  and  caufe,  I  Vvill  not,  but  attend  to  it ;  and 


Mr.   Aufilns  Mijlakes.  29 

tbeii  we   fniill  fee    if  bis  caufe  looks  any    the  better  for  be- 
ing attended  to. 

He  informs  us,  firll,  That  death  to  fm,  fpiritual  burial, 
and  rifing  again  to  newnefs  of  life,  are  the  effects  of  bap- 
tifm. 

Second,  That  water  baptifm  has  fome  evident  likenefs  to 
the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  to  regeneration,  which 
produces  thefe  effeds,  death  to  fm,  fpiritual  burial,  and 
refurreclion  to  newnefs  of  life. 

Third,  That  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  the  caufe 
of  our  death  to  fm,  fpiritual  burial,  and  refurreilion  to  new- 
nefs of  life,  and  fwater  baptifm  has  fome  evident  likenefs  to  it. 
Now  I  aik  the  reader,  and  am  willing  Mr.  A.  Ihould 
hear  me,  firft.  What  likenefs  is  there  between  infant  fprink- 
ling,  or  affufion,  and  w^hat  he  calls  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  or  a  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  which,  fays  he,  is  tlie 
cojije  of  fpiritual  death,  burial  and  refurreciion  ?  Is  there 
any  likenefs  between  them  ?  Chrift  aifures  us  that  we  know- 
not  hotv  the  Spirit  gcesi  or  comes,  in  regeneration  ;  there 
can,  therefore,  be  no  evident  likenefs.  There  muft, 
however,  be  fome  evident  likenefs  between  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  regeneration,  and  the  fprinkling 
or  pouring  water  on  an  infant ;  or  one  of  thefe  two  things 
?s  true  ;  either,  fir  ft.  The  apoftle  was  guilty  of  a  grofs  im- 
propriety in  likening  them  together  ;  or,  fecondly,  He  has 
not  hkened  them  together,  as  Mr.  A.  tells  us  that  he  has. 
If  the  apoftle  have  not  compared  or  likened  them  together, 
then  infant  fprinkling,  or  affufion,  is  not  gofpel  baptifm,  or 
elfe  one  of  the  following  things  is  true  ;  either,  firft.  There 
is  noHkenefs  between  water  baptifm  and  the  baptifm  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  as  Mr.  A.Jieils  us  there  is  ;  or,  fecondly.  The 
apoftle,  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Coi.  ii.  12,  is  not  fpeaking  of  the 
baptifm  of  the  HJy  Ghoft^  where  Mr.  A.  fays  he  is.  Hence, 
Mr.  A.  hath  not  lold  us  the  truih,  or  infant  fprinkling  and 
affufion  are  not  gofpel  baptifm.  Befides,  no  perfon,  in  the 
full  ufe  of  his  reafon,  can  fay  there  is  even  the  hajl  likenefs 
hstween  putting  a  little  ivater  upon  a  child* s  face ^  and  the  pro- 
dudtion  of  a  natural  death,  burial  and  refurredion.  Mr.  A. 
then  has  but  this  alternative,  either  to  rehnquifti  his  bad 
caufe  as  loft,  cr  confefs  his  wrong  ftatements,  forfake  his 
erroneous  pofitions,  take  new  ground,  and  fot  out  afrefh. 
No  wonder  Mr.  A.  tells  us,  that,  if  we  write  again,  our 
performances  will  not  be  entitled  to  notice,  unlefswe  bring 
fomething  new,  or  give  the  controverfy  a  new  turn,  p'or, 
I  confefs,  were  I  on  his  ground,    I  (hould  prefer  any    nev^r 


30  Second  Expofitlon  of 

thing,  and  any  new  turn,   rather  than  have   the  old,  tried 
lubftantial  truths  brought  againd  me  again. 

2d,  But  I  have  another  quefliou  to  put  to  the  reader. 
It  is  this.  Does  your  Bible  fay,  in  any  one  place,  fo  much 
as  one  v/ord  about  bapii/m,  (whether  the  haptifm  of  water  or  of 
the  Holy  Ghofl;)  as  being  the  caufe  of  death  to  fin,  fplritual 
burial,  (unlefs  the  houfe  ueing  filled,  on  tiie  day  of  Pente- 
coft,  with  the  divine  prefence  and  glory,  might  be  thus 
termed)  or  of  refurrection  to  newnefs  of  life  ?  It  muft  fay 
thus  fome'-cuherej  or  this  muft  be  the  fentiment  of  the  Bible, 
or  Mr.  A.  hath  made  wnoihev  great  mijlake^  and  was  hardly 
prudent  in  begging  me  to  notice  it.  tjhould  he  fay,  tJiat, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecoft,  the  apoftles  v.-ere  fpiritually  bu- 
ried, that  is,  they  were  immerfed,  or  overwhelmed  in  the 
ever  memorable  atfufions  of  the  Spirit,  then  he  becomes  a 
Baptift  at  oiTce  ;  for  he  fays,  water  haptifm  is  a  fymbol,  or 
figure  oi^  it.  But,  if  he  4iy,  that  he  intends,  by  the  hap- 
tifm of  the  Holy  Ghoft;  his  regenerating  inHuences,  then  I 
have  another  queftion  to  put  to  the  reader — 

3d.  Does  your  Bible  ever  fpeak  of  regeneration,  or  con- 
verfion,  as  being  the  haptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  It  ap- 
pears, that  Mr.  A.  and  his  brethren  have  gotten  a  kind  of 
haptifm  of  their  own  ;  a  kind  of  haptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  which  contradicts  tlie  Bible  account  of  that  haptifm, 
nearly  as  much  as  do  their  fprinkling  and  affufion  for  hap- 
tifm,. This  ihey  appear  to  have  invented,  to  juftify  them 
for  fettlng  afide  the  gofpel  water  baptiim.  Thus  has  it  fre- 
quently happened,  fucji,  as  venture  to  depart  from  the 
good  old  Bible  way,  arc  conftrained  to  invent  fome  new 
errors  to  cover  their  old  ones. 

I  wilh  to  make  a  few  obfervations,  and  then  Ihall  quit 
this  part  of  my  reply  to  Mr.  A. 

1.  I  wiili  to  know  of  him,  or  of.  any  of  his  brethren, 
who  told  them,  that  to  be  dead  to  fm  is  to  be  baptized  of 
the  H.ly  Ghoft  ^   Rom.  vi.  2. 

2.  I  wilh  to  know  of  ;iny  of  them,  if  tliey  be  able  to  tel" 
me,  who  gave  them  the  inform.ation,  that  to  be  baptized  in- 
to Jefas  Chrift  is  to  be  baptized  into  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and 

With  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  Rom.  vi.  3. 

3.  I  wifti  to  know  whether,  according  to  their  notion 
of  infant  haptifm,  their  children  are  not  baptized  into  Jefus 
Chrift  ;  and  then  whether  all  their  children  are  bapti/ed 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?,  For  fays  Paul,  So  rriany  of  us  as 
were   bapti/.ed    into    Jefus  Chrift  were    baptized  into  his 


Mr.  Auftins  MiJ}akes,  31 

4.  I  wiili  to  be  informed  by  ftny  of  them,  who  told  them, 
und  how  they  obtairred  their  information,  that  to  be  buried 
with  Chrirt  by  baptifm  into  death  is  the  fame  as  being  bap- 
tized wirh  the  Holy  Ghofl  ?  Or,  to  pleafe  Mr.  i\.  I  will  ftate 
the  queilion  a  little  differently.  Who  told  liim  and  his 
brethren,  that  the  effei^  of  being  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghod  is  to  be  buried  'vjith  Chr'tj}  by  baptifm  ?  For  f*ys  Paul, 
Rom.  vi.  4,  We  are  buried  with  aim  by  baptifm^  into  death. 
He  does  not,  however,  fava  word  of  this  being  the^i?  of 
the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  GhoJ}. 

5.  I  delire  to  know  who  told  them,  that  to  walk  in  new- 
nefs  of  life  was  to  be  baptized  with  the  K'.y  Ghoft,  or 
was  theeffeif^  of  this  bapttlhi  ?  Rom.  vi.  4.  For  fays  Mr.  A. 
"  the  fpiritual,  internal,  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  exactly 
coincides  with  the  whole  of  this  reprefentation."  Rom. 
vi.  I — 6. 

6.  I  wilh  to  know  of  Mr.  A.  or  of  any  o^  his  brethren, 
whether  Peter,  John,  James,  and  the  reft  of  the  holy  breth- 
ren, who  were  allembled  in  Jerufalem,  on  the  memiOrable 
morning  of  PentecoO:,  were  baptized  tiL-ice  by  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  For  they  were  raiftd  to  ncwrufs  of  life, 
long  before  that  morning  arofe  5  and  Mr.  A.  tells  ns,  that 
to  be  rafedlQ  ne-wnefs  of  life  is  the  effect  of  the  baptilm  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft.  They  muft  therefore  have  been  thus  bap- 
tized long  before,  or  the  effe3  m.uft  have  preceded  the  caule. 
To  underRand  which  would  puzzle  Mr.  A.  as  much  as  it 
did  Prefident  Edwards  to  under/land  the  felf-determining 
power  in  the  Arminians.  I'hl'^,  hov.-ever,  mull  be  under- 
ftood  and  explained,  or  elfe  they  will  not  be  able  to  clear 
themfelves  from  the  herefy  oi  fpiritual  anahaptifm.  For  none 
of  them  will  dare  deny,  but  the  difciples  were  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  on  the  morning  of  that  memorable 
day,  when  thoufands  were  converted  under  Peter's  fcr- 
mon. 

7.  I  wiih  to  know  who  told  thefe  good  men,  that  to  be 
planted  in  the  likenefs  of  Chrift's  death  in  baptifm  is  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  is  the  effe(5t  of  it  ? 

8.  I  wifh  to  know  of  Mr.  A.  or  of  any  of  his  brethren, 
who  told  them,  that  to  be  buried  with  Chriii  in  baptifm  is 
to  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Ghoji,  or  is  the  efeci  of  this  bap- 
tifm ?    Col.  ii.  12. 

9.  I  defire  to  know  of  them,  who  gave  them  autharity 
to  fay  and  teach  thefe  things?  We  find  not  a  word  of  all 
this  matter  in  all  the  Bible.  If  they  would,  any  of  thenir 
be  confidered  as  miail\ers  of  Chrift,  they  ihould  teach  what 


32  Second  Expofiticn  of 

he  hath  commanded  them,  and  not  be  amufing  their  hear- 
ers and  the  public  with  mch  vain  things,  and  for  a  purpofe 
A  ill  more  vain,  to  pervert  the  gofpel  of  Chrift,  or,  at  beft, 
its  tirlf  ordinance  and  the  fubjeds  of  it. 

Perhaps  Mr.  A.  vvili  not  again  beg  me  to  attend  to  his 
dillin(5^ions  :  but  I  fnall,  if  the  Lord  give  me  opportunity, 
unlefs  he  and  his  brethren  ceafe  to  pervert  the  Scriptures  as 
they  have  hitherto  dene. 

We  fhall  now  take  under  confideration  fome  other  things, 
which,  in  Mr.  A.'s  Letters  need  corredlion.  It  may  furprife 
the  public,  that  a  man  of  Mr.  A.'s  chara<fler,  and  good 
fenfe,  fhould  mifs  the  truth  at  every  ftep.  But  when  it  is 
confidered,  .!.at  the  fide  which  he  defends  is  nothing  but 
falfehood  and  error,  the  furprife  vanifhes,  and  it  would 
have  been  unaccountable,  had  he  done  otherv.'ife,  and  yet 
been  confident  v.ith  himfelf  and  caufe. 

Such  as  continue  in  their  errors  will,  no  doubt,  be  dif* 
pleafed  with  me  for  expofmg  him  and  them,  and  will  pro- 
bably wilh  to  hear  no  m.ore  of  the  controvcrfy.  But  fo 
long  as  truth  is  better  than  error,  and  the  command  con- 
tinues, to  contend  earnePJy  for  the  faith  which  was  once 
delivered  to  the  faints;  fo  long  mull- the  errors  of  the  er- 
roneous be  expofed. 

Some  of  the  remaining  errors  in  Mr.  A.'s  Letters,  which 
need   corredion,  are  the  following  : 

I.  Says  he  to  n  e  p.  7,  "  Your  third  Letter  tome  is  now 
to  come  under  confideration. 

'♦  In  the  beginning  of  this  Letter,  you  make  pretentions 
to  cancloui  and  fairnefs,  l'..t  renounce  them  both  at  the  ve- 
ry next  ftep.'* 

I  think  myfelf  happy,  that  I  may  anfwer  for  myfelf,  and 
the  public  fhall  fee  how  I  renounce  candour  and  falrnefs. 
He  gives  the  following  for  evidence.  *'  For  (fays  he)  yoti 
make  me  to  maintain  that  manifeft  unbelievers  are  proper 
and  gofpel  fubjedls  of  baptifm.  Thefe  are  your  luords  again. 
I  have  /aid  no  Juch  thing."  This  is  Mr.  A.'s  accufation  : 
and  I  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  ftubborn  fafts,  and  to  com- 
mon fenfe,  if  he  have  not  faid  the  whole  v.'hich  I  have  laid 
to  his  charge  ;  and  whether  he  have  not  denied  the  plain 
matter  of  f  ic^,  that  he  might  excufe  himfelf,  and  charge 
me  with  renouncing  candour  Aiid  fairncfs  ? 

Says  Mr.  A.  "  What  I  maintain  is,  that  the  infants  of 
vlfible  believers  are  gofpel  fubjecTts  of  baptil'm." 

We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  if  infants  of  vifib^e  believers, 
as  well  as  others,  be  not  manifej}!y  unlsHtven  P  That  informs 


Mr.  Aiifiin^s   MijMes^.  55 

lis,  lhi\t  man  is  born  like  a  nvild  afs's  colt.  It  does  not  ex- 
empt believers*^  children  any  more  than  others.  Befides 
favs  our  Saviour,  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot, 
lee  the  kingdom  of  God.  Is  Mr.  A.  an  Arminian,  or  a: 
Welleyan  Klethodid,  and  fo  has  he  adopted  the  inventions 
of  men  to  pervert  thefe  texts  ?  If  he  have,  llill  I  will  fhow 
the  public,  that  he  has  denied  a  plain  fact,  to  get  rid  of 
a  difficulty.  For,  in  the  fame  page,  and  in  the  preceding, 
he,  fpeaking  cf  the  jailer,  and  of  his  hcufehold,  charges  me 
with  prrjumptuous  comments,  which^  fays  he,  are  calculated  to 
make  your  unlearned  readers  conclude,  that  the  jailer's 
houfehold  are  iaid  to  be  believers  as  well  as  hirafelf.  Where- 
as the  evidence  from  the  ufe  of  this  participle  is  quite  the 
other  ^iuay.^^  Here  Mr.  A.  informs  us,  that  the  jailer's 
houfehold  were  baptized,  when  they  did  not  believe  ;  and 
charges  me  with  prefuraptuous  comments,  becaufe  I  held 
with  the  plain  Scripture  account  of  the  matter,  that  the 
jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  houfe.  Mr. 
A.  holds  that  the  houfehold  of  the  jailer  was  baptized, 
while  they  were  unbelievers^  and  that  this  is  a  j.uftification  of 
his  and  his  brethren's  practice.  Now  I  appeal  to  th; 
common  fenfe  of  all  men,  if  unbelieving  houfehoUs,  or  if  the 
unbelieving  members  of  a  maniftjlly  unbelieving  houfehold  be  not 
vianifcfc  unbelievers.  If  they  be,  then  Mr.  A.  holds,  that 
manifejl  unbelievers  are  proper  and  go/pel  Jub'jeSts  of  laptifm  / 
or  elfe  he  charges  the  Apoftles.  with  baptizing  improper 
and  ungofpel  fubjecls.  For  he  holds,  that  they  baptized 
fuch>  and  c]"'arges  me  v/ith  prefumptuous  comwenU^  where  I 
fl]0w,  that  tliey  did  not  baptize  fuch  untit  and  improper 
fubje6ls.  I  now  appeal  to  every  man,  who  has  common 
fenie,  whether  Mr.  A.  has  not  contradicled  plain  matter  of 
fad  ;  denied  his  own  fentiment,  and  charged  me  unjufOy  ; 
and  all  this  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty  into  whieh  his  errors 
have  brought  him  ;  and  whether  he  does  not  hold  to  the 
unfcriptural  and  popilh  fentiment,  that  manifejl  unbelievers 
are  proper  and  gnfpel  fubjeds  of  baptifm  ? 

2.  In  page  2  i,  fays  Mr.  A.  to  me,  "  In  p.  17,  you  make 
a  very  unfair  ftatement*  You  fay^  '  Beudes  it  is  your  fen- 
timent, that  baptilm  is  to  be  obferved,  or  received,  when 
we  are  infants  ;  w^hen  we  know  nothing  about  it.  Hovr 
much  fcrious  reverence  and  confcientioufnefs  infants  have, 
we  know  not !'  Is  this  fair  ?  Is  it  honeft  i  Vou  have  omitted 
to  mention  our  adult  baptifms  entirely."  Truly,  I  have 
omitted  it,  but  will  now  meniion  it,  and  ejpoie  the  who!^ 
biilmef>. 

s  X 


34  Second  Expofition  of 

I.  Mr.  A.'s  fentiment  is  exadly  as  I  fat  it  clown  ;  but 
I  did  not  expoie  the  whole.  For  his  fentiment  is,  as  I  ob- 
ferved,  that  baptifm  is  to  be  received,  when  we  are  infants, 
when  we  know  nothing  about  it.  He  holds,  that  this 
ought  to  be  the  cafe  univerfally,  in  all  Chrifiian  lands. 
For  it  is  his  fentiment,  that  all  parents,  where  the  gofpel 
is  preached,  ought  to  be  believers,  when  their  children  are 
born  ;  and  that  all  fuch  children  ought  to  be  baptized  or 
fprinkled  in  their  infancy.  Thus  he  hold.-.,  that,  in  gcfpe-l 
lands,  all  ought  to  be  baptized  before  they  believe  ;  and 
that  none  fhould  be  taught  till  after  they  are  baptized. 
Juft  the  contrary  from  what  Chrift  commanded,  and  the 
Scriptures  every  where  teach.  Thus  we  fee,  could  his 
error  have  its  perfect  work,  how  ferioufly  they  v.'ould  rev- 
erence, and  how  confcientioufly  they  would  obferve  the 
l^ofpel  ordinance  of  bapLifm.  They  would  fo  reverence  it, 
and  fo  confcientioufly  obferve  it,  that  not  a  fmgle  believer 
in  the  whole  nation  ihould  have  the  privilege  to  fubmit  to  it 
according  to  the  exprefs  command  of  our  Saviour.  No 
one  fliould  be  taught,  and  then  baptized  ;  but  all  fhould  be 
baptized,  and  then  taught. 

But,  2d.  Says  }i«=-,  "You  have  omitted  our  adult  bap- 
tifms  entirely."  I  have  ;  but  will  be  faulty  in  this  partic- 
ular no  longer.  Now,  for  their  adult  baptifms.  What 
are  they  ?  The  reader  fhall  hear,  and  then  will  never  for- 
get them.  Their  adult  baptifms  are,  when  a  mafter  of  a 
family  is  converted,  his  houfehold  of  adult  Impenitents 
inuft  be  baptized  as  well  as  the  believing  mailer.  This  is 
Mr.  A.'s  principle,  and  if  he  will  not  acknowledge  it,  I  will 
prove  it  to  him.  He  tells  us,  that  the  PhiJippian  jailer  be- 
lieved, that  his  houfehold  did  not,  and  yet,  that  they  wer<^ 
proper  fubjeds  of  baptifm  ;  and  that  the  baptifms  of  fuel: 
unbelieving  houfeholds  are  their  adult  baptifms.  Thefe 
are  not  juft  his  words,  but  thefe  are  his  fentinients,  not  de- 
duced from  his  principles,  but  from  his  declarations  and 
affertions,  as  tl:i€  reader  may  fee  by  confulting  his  Letters  to 
the  author.  Befides,  this  is  juft  in  agreement  with  their 
principles.  If  they  deny  this,  they  give  up  their  princi- 
ples, and  ftand  upon  nothing.  They  have  no  other  de 
fcription  of  adult  baptifms  belonging  to  their  fyftem  ;  un- 
lefs  in  fome  rare  inftances,  a  heathen  bachelor  or  maid, 
without  a  family,  might  be  converted,  and  then  fuch  an 
adult  might  be  admitted  to  fprinkling. 

The  public  are  now  defired  to  judge,  with  v\-hat  propri- 
fjty   Mr.  A.  aiferted,  in  his  firft  Lctter>,   faying,    "  We  a;- 


Mr,  Aujitns  M'lfiakes,  2>S 

ferioufly  reverence,  and  ccnfcientiouny  obferve  the  goipel 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  as  do  the  B:^.ptii^s."  Upon  this,  I  ob- 
ferved  to  him,  that  it  vas  his  fentiment,  that  this  ordinance 
is  to  be  cbferved  or  received  when  we  are  infants,  v>'hen  we 
can  know  nothing  about  it,  How  much  ferious  reverence 
and  confcientioufnefs  infants  have,  w^e  know  not.  To  this 
he  replies,  **  Is  this  fair  P  Is  it  honed  ?"  Yes,  and  I  appeal 
to  the  Bible  and  to  the  common  fenfe  of  the  public,  if  the 
whole  truth,  fairly  laid  open,  would  not  have  made  him  ap- 
pear more  erroneous,  and  given  his  fentiments  a  worfe  hue  ? 
But  as  he  hath  faid,  "  Is  this  fair  ?  Is  it  honeft  ?"  he  is  now 
defired  to  inform  the  public  how  much  ferious  reverence,  and 
confcientioufnefs  the  infidel,  orunbelievinghoufeholds  of  con- 
verted mailers,  or  parents  have  ?  Have  unbelieving  adults, 
whofe  hearts  are  hardened  by  experience  in  wickednefs,  any 
more  ferious  reverence  or  confcientioufnefs,  in  fubmitting 
to  baptifm,  at  the  command  of  their  mafter,  or  of  the  offi- 
ciating prieft,  than  have  infants  of  a  day  old  ?  Suppofe 
the  jail-keeper  in  Worcelier  be  convened,  and  his  family, 
or  houfehold,  confift  of  half  a  dozen  of  unbelieving  adults, 
with  how  much  ferious  reverence  and  confcientioufnefs 
would  they  obferve  the  gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm  \ 
Should  they  fubmit  to  be  fprinkled,  or  partially  wafhed, 
or  have  water  poured  upon  tliem,  or  have  water  applied  to 
them  in  fome  other  way,  which  Mr.  A.  might  fancy  to  be 
gofpel  baptifm,  then  might  the  fpecftators  behold  one  of  his 
adult  baptifms,  which  he  fays  I  have  omitted  entirely.  I 
confefs,  did  I  hold  to  fuch  adult  baptifms,  and  did  my  op- 
ponent neglect  to  m.ention  them,  I  would  never  complai.i 
of  fuch  omilTion,  unlefs  my  judgment  were  what  it  is  not, 
or  I  wiihed  my  fentiments  to  be  had  in  everlafting  re- 
proach. 

Let  the  Bible  dodlrine  of  gcfpel  baptifm,  let  the  Bible 
^a'fts,  relating  to  gofpel  baptifm,  let  common  fenfe,  as  to 
gofpel  baptifm,  judge  whether  Mr.  A.'s  adult  baptifms  be 
any  way  preferable  before  the  heathen  rites,  praclifed  in 
honour  of  Jupiter,  or  of  other  heathen  gods  !  The  Bible 
knows  nothing  about  fuch  adult  baptifms,  as  he  and  his 
brethren  advocate.  The  fadl  is,  they  have  loll  tlie  idea  of 
gofpel  baptifm,  and  of  the  fubjeds  too  ;  and  now  confider 
themfelves  juftified  in  contending  eameftly  for  the  com- 
mandments and  traditions  of  men. 

3.  Says  Mr.  A.  page  26,  "There  are  fome  men,  fir, 
who  have  not  a  jot  of  oil,  nor  a  grain  of  balm,  in  their 
velleb,  who  yet  have  infinite  real  about  th.ings  of  compur- 


3^  Sccc?id  Expojnon  of 

atlve  InJliTerence.  Th^  lefs  determinate  evlJence  there  ts,, 
the  more  poutive  do  they  feem  to  be."  By  the  connexion 
in  vvj.ich  this  paliage  is  introduced,  ir  is  manifeft  that  the 
Baptifts  are  intended.  But  we  appeal  to  the  public,  if  Mr. 
A.  have  not  mi:l:aken  their  characLcriftics.  *'  Infinite  zeal 
(fays  he)  about  things  of  coxnparaLive  indi^erence.**  Who 
more  zealous  than  Mr.  A.  and  his  brethren,  about  baptifm  ? 
Yet  they,  efpecially  he,  confefs  it  to  be  of  fuch  comparative 
indifference,  that  it  may  be  adminiftered  at  one  time,  or  at 
another  time,  or  at  no  time  ;  and  that  it  may  be  in  one  -way^ 
or  in  another  way,  or  in  cJmoJ}  any  way.  It  is  not  thus  with 
the  Baptifts.  *'  Ihe  lefs  determinate  evidence  (fiys  he), 
there  is,  the  more  pofitive  do  they  feem  to  be."  Nothing 
can  better  apply  to  Mr.  A.  than  does  this ;  for  I  ihowed 
him,  in  my  Letters,  that  he  had  no  determinate  evidence, 
nor  even  probable  evidence,  in  favour  of  his  errors ;  yet 
he  is,  if  pofllble,  more  pofitive  than  before.  "They  plant 
themfelves  (fays  he)  on  an  elevation  enveloped  in  vapours, 
and  yet  fancy  that  they  on/y  have  the  feeing  faculty."  We 
can  fee,  that  to  be  baptized  in  the  river,  is  not  to  be  fprink- 
led  01^  of  it.  We  can  fee,  that  to  Iiave  our  bodies  auajhed 
with  pure  or  ample  water,  is  a  different  thing  from  having 
a  little  put  upon  our  facvs.  We  can  fee,  that  for  converts, 
to  be  baptized  when  they  hear  the  word  gladly,  is  not  the 
fam^e  as  to  be  fj->rinkled  before  they  can  underlland  one 
word  from  another.  We  can  fee  fome  difference  between 
burying  believers  with  Chrifl  in  the  very  folemn  and  fig- 
nificant  ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  the  fprinkh'ng  or  pour- 
ing water  on  adult  infidels  becaufe  their  mailers  believe. 
We  do  not  claim  exclufive  poffefilon  of  the  feeing  £iculty  :. 
we  believe  Mr.  A.  has  k,  but  with  relation  to  gofpel  bap- 
tifm, will  not  \\%  it. 

Again,  fays  be,  *'^They  make  a  thoufand  times  m.ore 
fufs  about  the  m.ode  of  a  thing,  about  converfion  to.  that 
mode,  and  the  putting  in  pra(flice  that  mode,  waiting 
months  to  give  it  publicity,  and  feviding  from  Dan  to 
Beerflieba  for  agents  to  be  employed  about  it,  than  if  all 
the  inhabitants  of  Louifiana  were  converted  to  Chritllan- 
ity."  !  !  This  we  believe  to  be  a  very  rafii  untruth,  ofc' 
wliicli  Mr.  A.  muft  repent  in  the  prefent  or  future  world. 

4.  The  public  will  excufe  me,  though  in  this  place  I 
may  prefent  them  with  a  quotation  of  unufual  length.  In 
my  judgment,  it  is  expedient,  in  the  prefent  debate,  to  be 
liberal  in  quotations.  My  reafons  arc  two  :  one  is,  that 
my   opponents   (haH   have   no  plaufible.  objection  to  make^ 


Mr.  Aujllr's  Mijiakes,  2>7 

that  their  fentiment  is  not  fuirly  ftatej  j  the  other  is,  that 
then  very  many  of  my  readers  will  Jifcover  for  themfelves 
the  fallacy  and  weaknefs  cf  my  opponents'  arguments,  by 
infpe;5tion,  before  they  are  particularly  eipofed.  It  would 
pleafe  me  well  to  be  ufed  in  the  fame  \vay  ;  then  would 
the  readers,  on  both  fides  of  the  quellion,  pollefs  a  mere 
generous  opportunity  to  know  the  truth  :  but  thofe  who 
contend  with  me  will  ufe  their  pleafure  in  this  maatter. 

The  quotation  is  in  pages  37  and  38,  and  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  — 

"  The  fecond  proof  which  I  advanced  againft  your  doc- 
trine of  the  exclufive  meaning  of  the  word  laptizo,  is  the 
pafiage  in  i  Cor.  x.  2,  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Mofes 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea.  Here  your  reply  is  founded 
altogether  on  the  force  of  the  prepositions  under^  through,  and 
in.  Prepofitions  are  every  thing  with  you.  But  how  are 
we  to  underhand  them  ?  Beyond  all  doubt,  the  declaration 
of  the  apoille  is  founded  upon  the  fact  in  the  Mofaic  narra- 
tive. This  you  have  not  dared  to  look  in  the  face.  You 
ikulk  under  prepofitions,  in  the  hope  they  will  (hield  you 
from  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  are  able  to  detecl  your  fophifms. 
But  you  miUiT:  come  out.  You  have  committed  yourielf 
before  the  public.  You  have  impofed  on  the  credulity  of 
your  unlearned  readers,  by  indefenfible  afTertions,  which 
you  do  not  fapport,  and  rauft  be  rebuked  for  your  temerity. 
This  text  alone  is  fufficient  to  confound  all  thofe  affertions. 
The  apoille  fpeaks  of  the  whole  multitude  of  Ifrael,  and 
comprehends  every  individual.  All  our  fathers.  Now 
will  you  undertake  to  fay  before  the  public,  that  all  tli::fe 
fathers,  individually,  were  immerfed  in  the  cloud,  when  the 
facred  narrative  fays,  E}:od.  xiv.  19,  And  the  pillar  of  the 
cloud  went  from  before  their  face  and  fcood  behind  them  ; 
and  it  came  between  the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the 
camp  of  Ifrael  ?  Will  you  fay  that  they  w^ere  individually 
immerfed  in  the  fea,  when  the  facred  narrative  is,  verfe  22, 
And  the  children  of  Jfrael  went  into  the  midft  of  the  fea 
upon  dry  ground,  and  the  waters  were  a  w^all  unto  them 
on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left.  If  by  the  fea  be 
meant  the  bed  of  the  waters,  that  was  diy  ground  under 
their  feet  ;  if  the  waters  themfelves,  they  were  en  each  fide 
of  the  congregation  as  a  wall." 

I  will  here,  in  the  firfl  place,  give  the  public  a  particular 
ftatement  of  the  facls  which  caufed  the  good  man  to  fpeak 
fo  fmartly,  and  to  aifert  thinps  fo  roundly,  and  then  I  fhall 


38  Second  Espcfition  of 

endeavour  to  expofe  his  errors,  with  which  the  quotation  is 
crowded. 

The  accurate  ftatement  now  follows.  In  his  firft  Let- 
ters to  me,  page  57,  his  words  are,  "  Another  cafe  in 
which  the  word  bapti%o  is  undeniably  uied  to  convey  an 
idea  entirely  different' from  tliat  of  complete  immerfioii, 
and  which,  for  fome  reafon  bclf  known  to  yourfelf,  you 
have  thcught  proper  to  omit,  occurs  in  i  Cor.  x.  2,  And 
were  all  baptized  [ebaptizanto)  unto  Mofes  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  ftra."  To  this  I  replied,  page  42,  thus  : — «  Here 
let  Paul  explain  himfelf,  or  let  the  preceding  verfe  explain 
what  this  means.  The  preceding  yQx^Q  is,  Moreover,  breth- 
ren, I  would  not  that  ye  fliould  be  Iguoranty  how  that  all  our 
fathers  were  under  the  cloudy  and  all  palfed  through  the  fea. 
Then  follows  verfe  2,  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Mofes  ir. 
the  cloud  and  In  the  fea.  How  does  this  undeniably  convey 
an  idea  entirely  different  from  that  of  complete  immerfion  : 
It  looks  to  me  fomewhat  like  the  fame  idea.  It  certainly 
has  the  appearance  of  being  overwhelmed,  or  completely 
encompaifcd.  They  were  all  un<kr  the  cloud,  they  all 
palfed  through  the  fea ;  they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  fea.  This  your  undeniable  evidence  againll:  the  idea 
of  immerfion,  appears,  upon  the  very  face  of  it,  to  favour, 
ftrongly  to  favour,  the  very  truth  which  you  brought  it  to 
deftroy.'* 

We  will  now  attend  to  the  errors  which  he  hath  given  us 
within  the  limits  of  one  paragraph. 

1.  "  Here  (fays  he)  your  reply  is  founded  altogether 
upon  the  force  of  prepofitions.'' 

^Tijiver,  The  force  of  my  reply  was  founded  upon  the 
words  of  the  apolUe ;  I  was  difpofed  to  let  him.  explain 
himfelf.  Mofes  faid  nothing  about  baptifm,  nor  of  the 
fathers  being  baptized  unto  him,  either  in  the  cloud  or  in 
the  fea  ;  but  as  Paul  had  brought  forward  this  manner  of 
exprellion,  and  as  he  only  had  thus  done,  I  confidered  it  but 
reafonable  to  allow  Paul  to  explain  himfelf.  But  as  Mr. 
A.  contrary  from  all  reafonable  men,  will  not  fufFer  a  man, 
even  the  apollle^  to  exphtin  himfelf,  and  treats  me  not  ve^y 
clvilh-  for  my  referring  the  matter  to  Paul,  we  will  there- 
fore hear  Mr.  A. 

2.  Says  he,  "  Prepofitions  are  every  thing  with  you. 
But  how  are  we  to  underhand  them  ?  Beyond  all  doubt, 
the  declaration  of  the  apoRle  is  faaivJed  upon  the  fatfl  in 
the  Mofaic  narrative.  This  you  have  not  dared  to  look  in 
the  face." 


Mr.   Aujlln's  Mijiakcs,  39 

Arj-iver.  Is  it  with  me,  or  with  the  apoflle,  he  is  con- 
tending ?  I  hcive  made  no  prepolitions.  I  added  none  to 
thole  iifed  by  the  apoflle.  I  jull  fet  to  view  the  text,  as 
Paul  dehvered  it,  "  Beyond  all  doubt,  (lays  Mr.  A.)  thefe 
prepofitions  are  to  be  underRood  by  the  facl  in  the  Mofaic 
narrative.'*  Suppofe  this  to  be  true,  yet  is  not  Paul's  ex-  . 
pofition  of  Molcs's  narrative  as  good  as  Mr.  A.'s  ?  But, 
fays  he,  ''  This  (the  Mofaic  narrative)  you  have  not  dared 
to  look  in  the  face."  This  is  Mr.  A.'s  flieer  miilake  ;  for 
I  trull:,  through  grace  given  unto  me,  there  is  not  a  fmgle 
text  in  all  the  good  vs'ord  of  God,  but  I  dare  look  it  in  the 
f  ice,  and  am  wiUir.g  to  underitand  its  full  import,  with 
a  defire  to  obey  it. 

1  fnall  now  endciivour  to  look  his  two  formidable  texts 
full  in  the  face.  The  tirll  is  in  Kxod.  xiv.  19.  And  the 
pillar  of  the  cicud  went  from  before  their  face  and  flood 
bihind  them  ;  and  it  came  between  the  c:imp  of  the  Egyp- 
tians and  the  camp  of  ifrael."  This  explains  one  part  of 
what  Paul  fa}s,  n:J,n:eiy,  That  all  our  fath.-rs  v,-ere  under  the 
iloml.  Tlic  pillar  -A  cloud  v.-ent  from  before  their  face  and 
flood  bcliind  tlieni.  'x^hen  it  })aifed  over  oil  of  them^  as  it 
paiTed  from  front  to  rear.  This  may  figuratively  reprefnt  a 
tcmb-Jrcne,  which  lies  over  the  ivhole  grave.  Very  well ;  and 
what  is  the  other  text  which  I  dare  not  look  in  the  face  ? 
It  is  this,  vcrfe  22,  And  the  children  of  Ifrael  went  into  the 
midii  of  the  fea  upon  dry  ground,  and  the  ni'aters  were  a 
Kuall  unto  them  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left.  This 
gave  Paul  an  occafion  to  iiiy,  And  all  palFed  through  the 
iea.  Here  is  the  Mofaic  narrative  He  found  that  the 
iea,  or  the  ^waters  of  the  fea,  were  a  wall  on  each  fde  oi  all 
the  IfraeliUs.  Put  thefe  v/alls  and  the  figurative  tomb-flone 
t?  aether,  they  ^vould  be  fomething  oi  -j.  figurative  tomb  ; 
there  would  be  ibme  rcfemblance.  Hence  Paul  rai"-ht,  in 
a  figurative  way  of  fpeaking,  without  oiiending  any,  except 
the  oppofcrs  of  gofpel  baptifrn,  f;iy,  And  were  all  baptized 
unto  Moies  in  the  cloud  and  hi  the  lea.  The  cloud  and 
fea,  taken  together,  cncompafled  them,  or  overwhelmed 
them,  as  tliey  were  following  Moles  their  leader  ;  and  in 
the  mean  time  they  experienced  a  very  memorable  deliver- 
ance, which,  as  a  figure,  points  out  the  deliverance  from 
fni,  or  the  falvation  by  Jefus  Cliriil:,  even  as  water  baptifm 
does.  Now  we  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  the  Ihibborn  fa<5ts 
related,  10  €omm(m  fenfe,  to  any  thhig  and  to  every  thing 
which  will  fpeak  the  truth,  if  Mr.  A.  had  not  better  have 
do'gc  nothing  in  defence  of  his  errors,  than  to  bring  fuch 


<o  Second  Expofition  of 

texts  as  thefe  to  the  confideration  of  the  public.  For  doe» 
not  this  veiy  matter  look  a  little  like  immerfion,  the  gofpel 
baptifm  ?  And  where  is  there  the  lead  refemblance  of  his 
popilh  notion  of  pouring  or  fprinkling  ?  It  would  be  ridic- 
ulous to  fay,  tliat  all  the  Ifraelites  were  fprmkled,  or  had 
•^.vater  poured  upon  them,  either  from  a  pillar  of  fire  or 
from  the  fixed  walls  of  water  on  each  fide.  This  is  Mr. 
A.'s  artillery,  by  which  he  has,  if  we  may  believe  his  own 
words,  confounded  all  my  ailertions,  and  taken  away  viy 
defenjive  armour  ;  or,  this  is  fufficient  to  do  it. 

3.  But,  fays  he,  "  You  Jhulk  under  prepofitions,  in  the 
hope  they  will  iliield  you  from  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  are 
able  to  detect  your  fopliifms."  The  public  will  judge 
whether  I  have  Jl-ulkcd  under  prepofitions,  or  under  any 
thing  elfe,  or  whether  1  have  any  occafion  to  for  the  prefent. 
But  from  what  does  Mr,  A.  fuppofe  I  am  Jiulk'mg  ?  He 
plainly  tells  me,  "  From  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  are  able  to 
dete(5l  my  fophifms."  I  appeal  to  every  impartial  reader 
of  his  Letters,  whether  he  has,  in  either  of  his  pamphlets 
dete(fled  any  of  my  fophifms,  or  fliown  me  to  be  guilty  of 
owQ.  He  has  told  me  in  the  public  hearing,  page  43, 
*'  That  he  pitied  me^"  and  in  page  20,  *'  thai  he  -zcguIJ  be  nierci- 
ful  and  not  expofe,  too  m:ich^  the  naiednejs  of  the  land,**  Sec, 
But  where  has  he  proved  me  guilty  of  a  fophifm,  or  any 
confiderable  mi  (lake,  or  one  mlfreprefentation,   or  one  tri- 

Jiingj  unmardy  argument  ? 

4.  But,  fays  he,  "  Tou  rr.uj}  cone  out,  Tou  have  commit- 
ted vourjelf  before  the  public.  7'ou  have  inipo/cd  on  the  credulity 
of  your  unlearned  readers^  by  ivdefenfible  ajfertlcns^  nvhich  you  do 
not  fupport,  and  mifl  be  rebuhed  for  ytur  temer-ity.** 

yJnf'u.^er.  I  confefs  I  feel  myfelf  happy,  that  I  live  in  a 
Lind  of  freedom,  where  I  am  not  afraid  to  come  out,  and 
defire  Mr.  A.  to  make  good  his  charge.  Let  him  ihow,  if  he 
be  able,  in  what  1  have  committed  myfelf  before  the  public. 
Let  him  Ihow,  if  he  can,  for  I  invite  him.  to  expofe  me,  and 
I  alk  oi  him  neither /)iVv  nor  mercy,  fo  as  to  keep  back  one 
truth,  by  which  he  can  expofe  my  impofition  upon  the  cre- 
dulity of  my  unlearned  readers,  by  fo  much  as  one  indefen- 
fible  affertion.  If  I  have  not  done  this  in  a  fingle  inftancc, 
but  do  fupport  my  affertions,  and  Mr.  A.  be  not  able  to 
gainfay  them,  but  by  fi^ch  weak  and  beggarly  arguments 
'<i%pi^ures  in  his  Bible,  calling  to  the  fpirits  of  dead  men,  or 
telling  (lories  about  a  Baptiif  minifler's  praying  too  loud. 
Then  I  all;:  for  what  temerity  I  am  to  be  rebuked  by  him. 
Mr.  A.  ought  to  remember,   that   we   Jo  not   live  whtie 


Mr,  AujViris  Mifiakes.  41 

the  mouths  of  the  baptized  church  are  (lopped  by  prifons, 
fires,  racks  and  gibbets.  Truth  begins  to  break  forth  with 
brightnefs.  The  God  of  the  baptized  church  will  defend 
her,  and  his  plagues  begin  to  be  poured  upon  Antichrift  ; 
and  fuch  of  God's  people  as  do  not  hear  his  voice,  and 
come  out  of  her  fpeedily,  may  receive  not  a  little  of  thefe 
plagues. 

5.  For  a  general  anfwer  to  Mr.  A.'s  reply  to  my 
expofmg  his  erroneous  notions  of  diaphorois  baptifmois 
Keb.  ix.  10.  the  public  are  referred  to  my  Letters  to  him, 
p.  43,  44,  and  45.  But  as  he  confiders  himfelf  to  have 
gained  fome  advantage  from  the  ufe  of  the  word  diapho- 
rois in  a  diiferent  connexion,  fome  fmall  attention  mud 
be  paid  to  it.  His  words  are,  "  The  Greek  word  is  ufed 
but  in  one  other  place  in  the  New-Teftament  ;  that  is  in 
Rom.  xii.  6.  Having  therefore  gifts  differing,  d'laphora, 
according  to  the  grace  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy  or 
miniftry,  &c.     Thefe  gifts,  fays  he,  are  d'lffcvent  in  k'uid.'^ 

The  following  obiei  vations  will  fhow,  tiiat  the  text,  Rom. 
xii.  6.  and  the  word  dhplora  as  there  ufed,  will  afford  him 
no  help. 

1.  For,  to  fay  the  lead,  it  is  a  very  doubtful  thing, 
whether  the  gifts,  differing  according  to  the  grace  given,  be 
dijfererd  hinds  of  gifts,  or  different  fpecies  of  the  fame  hind  oi 
fpiritual  gifts.  Indeed  to  me  it  is  no  doubtful  cafe  at  all. 
For  there  are  different  kinds  of  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  Such 
2.S  gifts  effcntially  conneifled  with  the  finner''s  fahaf'on^  mirac- 
ulous gifts^  and  edifying  gfts.  Thofe  gifts  of  which  Paul  is 
fpeaking,  Rom.  xii.  6,  7,  are  of  the  latter  kind,  and  differ- 
ent fpecies  of  that  kind.  This  text  is  therefore  nothing  to 
his  purpofe. 

2.  But  grant  it,  if  h^  choofe,  that  the  gifts  fpoken  of 
are  different  in  kind  ;  yet  it  will  not  follow,  as  he  fuppofes, 
that  the  fame  adjective,  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  muft  mean  different 
kinds  of  baptifms.  It  might  ir  one  cafe  mean  different 
fpecies  of  the  fame  kind,  and  in  vanother  ditferrnt  kinds. 
So  it  v/ould  prove  nothing  to  his  purpcle,  even  fuppofe  it 
meant  juft  as  he  fays. 

3.  But,  fuppofe  farther,  that  the  ufe  of  the  word  dia^ 
phora,  Rom.  xii.  6.  would  prove,  that  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  the 
apoftle  is  fpeaking  of  diiferent  kinds  of  baptifms,  then  it 
would  confound  Mr.  A.'s  whole  argument  from  the  text, 
as  to  gofpel  baptifm,  or  worfe  ;  for  then  he  mud  fay  one 
of  tliefe  two  things ;  either,  firft,  that  it  hath  nothing  to 


42  Stcond  Exprjition  of 

do  witii  gofpel  bnpti.'ni  ;  or  fecondly,  that  there  arc  6.\?[e? 
ent  kirds  of  goij  el  bapliims.  If  he  fay  the  firil,  that  it 
hath  r(  thirrg  to  do  v  ith  gcfpelbnptifm,  then  it  vould  cor." 
fcurd  his  argumeiit,  f r  r  then  he  would  all  this  while  have 
been  arguing  fiom  a  topic  which  hath  nothirg  to  do  with 
the  fiibje6t.  jf  he  fay  the  other,  that  there  are  different 
kinds  ci  gofpel  baptifnis,  then  he  dees  wcrfe  than  give  up 
his  whole  argument  ;  for  he  implicitly  charges  the  apof- 
tie  with  falfehood,  and  our  Lord  Jefus  Chriil  with  impofi- 
tion  and  negligence.  He  implicitly  charges  the  apoftle 
with  falfehood  ;  for  Paul  exhorts  the  Ephefian  Chrillians 
to  unity,  and  ufes  as  one  argum.ent  to  this,  that  there  is 
but  one  Lord,  one  faith,  ojjc  hapt'ijm.  New  if  there  be  d'l^ir- 
ent  k'wch  of  gofpel  baptifms,  Paul  muft  have  fpokcn  falfe- 
ly,  with  a  defign,  no  doubt,  to  deceive.  Put  this  is 
rot  the  wcrrt  v.  hich  Mr.  A.  df  es.  L'e  implicitly  charges 
cur  Lord  Jefus  Chiift  vith  irpcfiti(  n  and  negligence  ; 
for  r.iir  Lord  knew  how  to  fpeak  in  fuch  plain  bnguage, 
that  his  poor,  ignorant  and  devout  followers  might  under- 
ftLjn.l  him.  Put  inftead  cf  doing  fo,  (if  Mr.  A.  be  correci) 
i:e  If  <  aks  in  fi'rh  ambiguous  and  imcertain  langurtge,  that 
f'-r  iexeral  of  the  fiift:  centuries,  no  one  undertlcod  Irim, 
and  none  ^^cre  certain  that  they  underftcod  him  to  mean, 
;;r  that  he  did  mean,  by  gr  fpel  bapiifm  any  thing  fhort  of 
immerfon,  till  Pope  Ckmtnt  the  Fifth,  in  the  fourteenth 
centiirv,  arofe  and  informed  xY.^  world,  that y/r//7/'//>/^  Ihould 
be  iwl'td  and  gofpel  baptifm  :  And  indeed  had  it  not  been 
for  Mr.  Auftin  of  Worcefter,  the  Chiifiian  \^rrld  wruld  not 
have  known,  to  this  day,  thiit  there  were  different  kirds  of 
gofpel  baptifms.  11  ms  sccordivig  lo  Mr.  A.  err  ble/Tcd 
Lord  and  JSaviour  (face king  to  iayj  has  impoftd  upon  his 
ignorant  fc^Uowers.  Not  only  Ic.  ])ut  the  compaihonate 
and  all-wife  Saviour  hath  given  the  law  of  j-oijel  baptifm 
in  iiiCii  equivocal  ard  uncertain  teims,  that  fc  ior  n  as  \.\% 
f(;ll(>w(rs  com.e  to  ki  ow  any  thing  alijut  letters,  thiv  m.rft 
be  c(ii:erding  about  what  it  is.  P(>r  it  could  not  but  be 
e>:pe<fKd  that  iome  of  tie  moie  itnorant  ones  v.culd  con- 
tend 1(r  tie  old  way  whidi  v.-as  pradifcd,  with  few  e>:cer- 
ticns.  1(  T  fifteen  ht'rdred  years.  Yes,  and  not  only  fo,  but 
Matt!  eu',  and  Maik,  ard  Luke,  and  Jt.hn,  and  Pauh  r.nd 
Peter,  hiive  agreed  togeiher  in  keeping  us  igrcrart.  P(T 
wherever  and  \\henever  they  have  If.ckcn  of  gofpel  bap- 
tifm, they  hsve  rm.ifcimly  Jprken  (f  it^  when  they  have 
mentioned  any  explanatory  circumfh:nce  ab(  ut  it,  as  th(-vigh 
it  veie  ere  thirg,  and  as  thet^^h   tJ  at  ere  thing  v^eie  im- 


Mr.  Aiifiin's  MyUka,  43 

merfion.  T-Li:.  iil.  6.  tells  us,  that  the  penitents  were  bap- 
tized in  Jordan.  Mark  tells  us,  \.  5.  that  they  were  baptiz- 
ed in  the  rivtr  of  Jordan.  Luke  informs  us,  that  when  the 
ordinance  of  bapLifm  was  adminillered,  they  not  only  camo 
to  the  zi'Mer,  bat  went  into  it.  Avits  viii.  John  gives  us  to 
underilaiiJ,  that  b  iptifin  was  admiui.lsrei  in  a  cerLaia 
place,  hdcaufd  there  was  much  water  there.  John  lii.  23. 
Paul  tells  ui,  that  as  many  as  were  baptized  into  Jemi 
Chriil,  were  buried  and  raifed  with  Chrid  in  the  ordinance, 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Col.  ii.  12.  Peter  teils  us  that  baptiim  is  a 
fit^ure  of  our  falvation,  anfwering  to  the  Hgure,  the  ark,  in 
which  Noah  was  faved.  Chap.  iii.  21.  of  his  fifil  epiitlt-. 
Now  all  thefe  have  agreed  together  to  deceive  us,  if  it  b^ 
a  deception,  and  to  make  us,  poor,  ignorant  creatures,  who 
have  not  come  to  maturity  of  judgment^  correcintp  of  knowi- 
edje,  and  Jiability  of  fulth,  believe,  that  gofpel  baptifm  i^ 
but  one  thing,  and  that  one  thing  is  immerfion,  in  the  nUiiic 
of  the  Father,  <Scc.  Whereas  they  have  not  faii  lO  much 
as  one  word  ^howl  fpri,i.Uirig  or  pourng  being  the  malter  of 
gofpel  baptifm,  or  given  ii  much  as  one  circumftanc^- 
which  makes  it  look  as  though  fprinklin^:  or  pouring-  vvu. r. 
ever  either  commanded  or  prac^ued.  Indeed  nad  not  Popj 
Clement,  in  the  year  I30j,have  told  as  that  fprinklhig  w.i^ 
valid,  fcriptural,  gofpel  baptifm,  no  Chridian  for  the  nut 
eighteen  hundred  years  of  Chriftianity,  would  have  knowM 
that  it  was  fo  ;  and  all  might  have  proceeded  on  in  their 
ignorance,  and  have  believed,  that  as  there  were  bat  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  (o  there  was  but  one  valid,  fcriptural,  gofpci 
baptifm.  In  much  the  fame  l^ate  of  ignorance  might  the 
Chriilian  world  have  now  been,  with  refpect  to  another 
important  matter,  had  not  Mr.  A.  been  raifed  up  to  inftrufl 
us,  that  there  are  different  kinds  of  gofpel  baptifms.  Uoq^, 
not  this  budnefs  of  ^lr.  A.  do  worfe  than  confound  his 
argument  ?  Does  it  not  make  his  Popifli  baptifms  look 
worfe  than  it  would  for  him  to  give  up  his  argument  from 
Pleb.  ix.  10?  In  (hort,  hid  he  not  better  have  taken  my 
advice,  if  he  would  maintain  his  fide,  to  fay  nothing  about 
it? 

6.  Wc  will  now  attend  to  Mr.  A.'s  lall  and  moft  formi- 
dable argument  againll  immeriion,  as  being  the  only  gof- 
pel baptifm.  As  this  laf}  A^d  main  argument  is  but  \}\Q,olJ 
Antichriflian  argument,  with  a  new  drefs,  it  might  receive 
but  little  notice,  were  it  not  that  by  repeatedly  turning  it 
over  before  the  public,  they  may,  one  after  another,  fee  the 
mjrh  of  the  beall   upon  it.     Another    coniideratioa    may 


44  Second  Expofaion  of 

render  it  advllable  to  pay  fome  attention  to  it  ;  and  it  is 
this  :  This  their  Jirjl  and  lafl  argument  is  the  only  argu- 
ment for  which  they  have  even  a  plauiible  pretence.  It 
was  the  principal  argument  which  Cyprian  in  the  third 
century  ufed  for  fprinkiing,  or  aitufion ;  and  it  is  the  lall 
which  Mr.  A.  ufes  in  the  nineteenth.  Cyprian  doubted  its 
validity  ;  but  Mr.  A.  is  fomevvhat  confident  that  it  will 
anfwer. 

■\Ve  will  now  hear  his  argument. 

Says  he,  page  40,  41,  42,  "To  conclude  this  part  of  the 
controverfy  on  the  mode  of  baptifm,  omitting  the  much 
that  might  be  faid  in  favour  of  fprinkiing  and  afFufion,  as 
both  warranted  in  the  fcriptures,  I  will  content  m.yfelf  with 
one  remark  ;  and  tlial  is  upon  the  impradic ability  of  the 
ordinance  according  to  your  account  of  it.  In  befieged 
cities,  whei-e  there  are  thoufands  and  hundreds  of  thou- 
fands  of  people  ;  in  fandy  deferts,  like  fome  parts  of  Af- 
rica, Arabia  and  Paleftine,  and  in  fom.e  northern  regions, 
where  the  dreams  and  the  ponds,  if  there  be  any,  are  fhut 
up  by  impenetrable  ices ;  and  in  fevere  and  extenfive 
droughts,  like  that  v%'hich  took  place  in  the  time  of  Ahab  ; 
fufficiency  of  water  for  animal  fubfiftence  is  almoil  unpro- 
curable. In  fom^e  cafes  it  is  entirely  fo  ;  infomuch  that 
millions  of  human  beings  have  fuffered  great  diftrefs  by 
thirft.  Now  fuppofe  God  fhould,  according  to  the  pre- 
di^ions  of  the  prophets,  pour  out  plentiful  effufions  of  his 
Spirit,  fo  that  all  tlie  inhabitants  of  one  of  thefe  regions  or 
cities  Ihall  be  born  in  a  day  ;  upon  your  hypothefis  there 
is  an  abfolute  impcilibility  they  fhould  be  born  into  the 
kingdom,  while  there  is  this  fcarcity  of  water;  and  this 
may  laft  for  months ;  yea,  as  long  as  they  live.  And  thefe 
thoufands  and  hundreds  of  thoufands  of  Chriilians,  m.uil 
remain  all  this  while,  and  perhaps  die,  without  having 
once  the  confolation  of  fupping  with  their  Redeemer. 
Now  it  muft  require  very  clear  evidence  to  convince  me, 
that  the  effence  of  baptifm  lies  in  that  which,  in  fb  many 
cafes  of  this  kind,  mull  defeat  the  very  defign  of  it ;  and 
that  baptifm  is  ever-  an  indifpenfable  prerequifite  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  moreover  is  altogether  unlike  what 
we  find  on  the  face  of  apoftolic  pradice." 

Thus  fays  Mr.  A.  in  the  light  of  the  nineteenth  century  ; 
and  what  does  it  all  come  to  r  The  following  remark  may 
fhow. 

I.  The  whole  of  it  is  argumenium  mi  pcifficnes,  that  is, 
an  argument  addrcifed  to  the  paffions  and  prejudices  of  men. 


Mr.  A:iftin"s   Mijlahs.  45 

2.  We  muft  make  Chrid's  pofitlve  inftitutions  bow  to 
our  convenience  jufl:  when  it  fuits  us,  becaufe  in  feme  pof- 
lible  cafes,  which  have  never  yet  happened,  and  never  will, 

we  could  not  be  baptized  according   to  the  command  and 
pattern  given,  with  refpe(5t  to  that  ordinance. 

3.  God  may,  not  according  to  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets,  give  a  great  rain  from  the  upper  fprings,  and  fhul 
up  the  lowrr  onss,  fo  that  a  nation  or  city  may  be  born  in 
a  day,  and  there  be,  at  the  time,  not  water  fuSicient  to^ 
baptize  them,  therefore  baptifm  cannot  always  mean  bap- 
tifm,  that  is,  immerfion  ;  bu:  muft  fometimes  mean  ran- 
tifm,  that  is,  fprinhling, 

4.  If  thoufands  and  hundreds  of  thoufands  fhould  be 
bt)rn,  on  that  very  day  in  which  they  had  fpent  the  laft 
of  the  water,  which  the  city,  or  fandy  defert  contained, 
what  would  Mr.  A.  do  then  ?  Would  he  not  do  as  fome 
of  the  popifli   monks  a,re  faid  to  have   done,  baptize  them 

with  fand  ? 

5.  But  there  is  another  difficulty.  Suppofe  their  vines 
fiiould  not  yield  their  fruit,  what  would  he  do  then,  as  to 
the  fecond  gofpel  ordinance  ?  No  doubt  he  would  fubftitute 
water,  or  forae  other  liquid,  if  he  had  any  ;  for  if  he  may, 
to  fuit  the  times,  change  the  very  ellence  of  one  ordinance, 
he  may,  no  doubt,  change  the  element  of  another.  But 
fuppofe  he  had  no  fubftitute,  fo  that  it  would  be  utterly 
impoffible  to  fup  with  his  Redeemer  ;  then  Mr.  A.  would, 
if  confifteut  with  himfelf,  conclude,  that  Chrift  never  in- 
tended to  command  the  real  ufe  of  bread  and  wine,  or  any 
other  material  elements  in  the  ordinance  of  the  fupper  ; 
for  the  want  of  bread  and  wine  may  happen  as  ofcen  and 
to  as  great  multitudes,  as  the  want  of  water.  Then  he 
might  conclude  thus  : 

*'  Now  it  muft  require  x-'ry  clear  evidence  to  convince  ni?, 
that  the  ejfence  cf  the  Lord^s  fupper  lies  hi  that  tuhich,  m  fo 
many  cafes  oi  this  kind,  muf}  defeat  the  very  defign  of  it." 
Thus  Mr.  A.I  with  the  very  fame  argument,  by  which  he 
condem.ns  my  principles,  juftifies  the  Quakers.  Juil  fo  far 
as  his  argument  is  good  in  one  cafe,  it  is  the  fame  in  'the 
other.  His  argument  is  either  good  for  nothing,  becaufe 
it  proves  too  much,  or  elfe  it  proves  juft  enough,  and  the 
Quakers  are  in  the  right. 

6.  The  "/a  many  cafes  of  this  kind,''  wliich  he  fuppofes 
muft  defeat  the  very  delign  of  baptifm,  are  mere  imagina- 
tion J  not  one  of  them  has  ever  occurred,  or  is  ever  like 
to. 

E  2    - 


4^  Second  Expofition  cf 

7.  Bat  his  concliuiing  words  are  panlcularly  noticeable  ; 
they  are  thefe  :  *'  This  moreover  is  altogether  unhke  what 
we  find  on  the  i.iQ^  of  apoflolic  praflice." 

If  he  mean,  th;it  what  he  hath  been  faying,  and  that  his 
whole  argument  is  altogether  unlike  what  we  find  on  the 
face  of  apoftolic  pradice,  it  is  a  folemn  truth.  For  we 
do,  indeed,  find  not  a  word  of  his  popilh  and  V\-icked  ar- 
gument and  praflice  in  any  of  the  writings  of  thofe  holy 
men.  We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  flnbborn  fails,  and  to 
the  common  {(^tSq  of  all  mankind,  if  there  be,  in  any  one 
text  of  the  whole  Bible,  where  it  fpeaks  of  gofpel  tim.es  and 
•"gofpel  ordinances,  {o  much  as  a  fingle  (hade  of  likenefs 
between  the  apotlolic  praclice  and  Mr.  A.'s  argument,  and 
the  errors  which  he  would  fupport  by  it  ?  But  if  he  intend 
by  his  clofing  aifertion,  that  liis  argument  and  tenets  are 
altogether  like  wh-i^  we  find  on  the  face  of  apoflolic  prac- 
tice, then  his  affertion  is  very  illy  founded,  and  deferves  a 
worfe  name  than  I  choofe  to  give  it.  But  this  I  will  fay, 
it  m^ay,  at  lead,  be  numbered  among  his  other  great  mif- 
takes,  and  the  argument  itfelf  may  increafe  the  number  of 
his' weak  cnrs. 

A  man  of  fenfe  muft  indeed  have  a  miferable  fide,  to  be 
'compelled  to  vSii  fucli  miierable  arguments  in  the  defence 
of  it.  1  can  bear  with  tolerable  patience  to  hear  Mr.'  A. 
accufe  me  of  repetitions,  Tor  I  had  rather  be  guilty  of  a 
thoufand,  than  to  have  one  fiich  argument  as  tliis  iaftly 
laid  to  my  account. 

7.  Were  it  not  for  the  importance  of  the  prefent  con- 
troverfy,  I  might  be  apprehenfive  fome  of  my  readers 
would  gladly  difmifs  the  remaining  errors  of  Mr.  A.  ;  but 
when  it  is  confidered  that  his  errrrs,  generally  fpe^ikinj, 
belong  to  a  great  clafs  of  m.en,  and  that  fjitis,  who  are 
witii  him  in  them,  are  not  only  men  of  fenfe  .md  eruditi;  n, 
but  of  piety  too  ;  and  befides,  when  it  is  confidered,  th-t 
where  his  errors  are  expofed,  mmy  may  have  them,  and 
more  may  take  heed  not  to  imbibe  tl  em  ;  then  it  will  ap- 
jpear  that  too  r»^:Uch  cannot  be  done  to  bring  tliem  into  ihtir 
defired  difrepca.  I  fliall  therefore'  fet  another  clufter  of 
ihern  to  public  view.  In  the  firft  place  w;fliiirt^t;the'rfl 
down,  as  Mr.  A.  hasgiven  them' to  us  in  his^3d'^age,''a'nd 
then  expofe.them  Individually.  They  ar6  contained  in^-his 
words  which  follow.  "  Theae  is  but  little  '  .h'a^clil3,-=tlK(t 
your  mod  partial  readers  will  be  quieted  by  tlie.Siew/_in- 
vention' of  yours,  as  much  at' variance  with  comniofr  f^fife, 
'arid  with  the  explanations  of  yoiir  rKiptidbrcthrcTr/'as  Mi^ii 


Mn  Aujiin's  Mijlakcs.  4-; 

the  icrlptures,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcidon  is  bat  a 
token  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  That  it  is  but  a  mere 
law,  and  that  circamcilioii  itfelf  is  this  covenant.  This  is 
twilling  and  turning  indeed.  '  The  covenant  of  circumci- 
fion  equal,  (fay  you)  every  man  child  being  circumcifed  j 
every  man-child  being  circaaiciled  equal,  the  circumciiin'^ 
of  the  flelh  of  their  forelkin  ;  the  circumcifing  of  the  fleih 
cf  their  forefkin  equal,  the  token  of  the  covenant  between 
God  and  Abraham  ;  here  the  token  of  the  covenant  be- 
twixt God  and  Abraham  equal,  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
■fion  :  for  it  is  a  well  known  axiom,  that  things  that  are 
equal  to  the  fame  are  equal  to  one  another.*  This  alge- 
braic equation,  my  frien  J,  i/.' />/(}'  t'j  you,  I  will  leave  under 
a  fimple  quotation." 
Som2  of  his  errors  contiln3d  in  this  quotation  are, 
I.  His  calling  it  an  invintion  of  mi.ie,  to  c  infidc-r  the 
covenant  of  circunicilion  as  but  a  tuksn  of  t!ie  cjv:narJ  of 
grace.  '1  his  is  far  from  being  an  inven:ion  of  mine.  For 
f.iith  the  Lord,  G^n.  xvii.  9,  10,  i  i.  "  Thou  ihalt  keep  my 
covenant  therefore,  thru  and  thy  [■^^l  after  thee,  in  their 
generations.  Tnis  is  ray  cavjnan!:  which  ye  Ih  ill  keep  be- 
t  veen  m^  and  you  aii  thy  feed  a^ter  thee  ;  e^jyrj  mj.n-ch'dd 
am  )ng  you  Ih  ill  be  circumcipd  \  and  ye  fliall  clrcu^nnfs  the 
Jiijlo  of  yo'iv  for-f^:iny  and  it  ihall  be  a  token  of  die  c^v^nuni 
b  t-jj'xt  me  ^.Ai  you.''*  In  the  13th  verfe,  GoA,  fpeaklng 
manifeftly  of  this  fame  covenant  of  circumcifiou;  faith, 
My  covenant  fli  ill  be  in  your  Jl-^jl),  for  an  everLiHring  cove- 
nant." Alfo  in  verfe  14.  fpeaking  of  the  fame  covenant, 
the  Lord  Iliith,  "  And  the  uneircamcifed  man-child  wjj/} 
JI^Oj  of  his  foreikin  is  not  circumcifed,  that  foul  (hall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people,  he  hath  br'jken  my  cJVfn.rnL**  Does 
Mr.  A.  fuppofe,  that  the  unclrcumcired  man-child  had 
broken  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  If  he  do,  the  fcriptures  fay 
ao  fuch  thing.  He  had  broken  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
fion,  or  the  law,  or  covenp.nt  of  circumcifion  had  not  been 
obferved  v/ith  relation  to  him-  Thus  we  fee  my  invention 
is  the  good  old  Bible  account  of  die  matter.  However,  it 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  he  fhould  wifh  to  get  rid  of 
this  matter  by  caUing  it  a  new  invention  of  mine.  -  For  this 
good  old  Bible  account  de;1:roys  his  anti-chriUian  notion  ol' 
puttiTig' -children  into  the  covenant  of  grace  by  baptizing^ 
ftiem.  For  all  the  plea  which  he  has  for  this  fuperfifitious- 
bafinefs,  is,  that  Abraham  and  his  feed  put  their  childreii/ 
as  he  and  his  brethren  erroneoufly  fuppofe,  into  •  that  cove^- 
iiartt,  by.  tircumcifing  them.     But  this  Bible  account  of 


4^  Second  Expo/it  ion  of 

circumciiioii  rern.n-es  this  part  of  the  myjhry  of  iniquity  ; 
and  fliows  that  Abraham's  children  were  net  put  into  the 
covenant  of  grace  by  being  circa. xicifed,  aiid  f )  it  deftroys 
the  notion  of  jndaizing  Chriiliiuis  piudng  theirs  in  by  hap- 
tlfm. 

2.  Another  error  in  the  above  quotation  is,  his  repre- 
fenting  what  he  calls  my  new  Invention,  as  being  at  va- 
riance v/ith  common  fenfe,  and  with  the  expln^nations  of  my 
Baptiil  brethren,  and  with   the  Bible. 

As  to  the  explanations  of  my  baptized  brethren,  I  kn  jvv 
not  what  they  are,  not  recoUecLing,  or  having  never  feen 
any  of  them.  Yet,  fijiding  that  my  invention  appears  to 
harmonize  perfe^ftly  with  the  Bible  reprefentation,  and 
knowing  that  the  Bible  and  common  fenfe  agree,  and  alfo 
knowing  that  ray  baptized  brethren  generally  agree  with 
both,  I  conclude,  tliat  I  am  not  greatly  at  variance  with 
either  of  the  three. 

3.  His  ne:ct  error  in  this  cln.ler  is  hi 3  declaration,  that 
my  confidering  the  covenant  of  circnmciUon  to  be  but  a- 
token  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  circumcifioa  itfjif 
is  this  covenant,  is  t^juyiing  and  turning  indeed. 

I  appeal  to  the  Bible  and  common  iQ-oS.^^  if  I  have  not 
gone  iide  by  fide  with  both  of  them.  If  I  hive,  ther?*  is- 
nelther  t^julfllng  nor  turning  about  it,  fave  it  twills  his  erro- 
neous fentiments,  and  turns  \\\s  nithn  of  putting  his  gracehf:'. 
children  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  by  fprinkling  them, 
out  of  credit,  au'l  make;  It  appear  as  It  fhoLiid,  an  inven-- 
tion  of  man.     This  is  what  T  call,  going  right  forward. 

4.  The  ocher  error,  which  I  Ihi'l  here  mention,  is  hij- 
unreafonable  pity  towards  me.  It  was  fogreat,  that  he 
has  left  us  all  in  ignoran.ce  of  vwiat  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifioa is.  The  public  wou'd  have  been  under  great 
obligation  to  him,  had  he  pitied  me  lefs,  and  fo  had  given 
them  a  plain  view,  or  clear  account  of  the  covenant  of  cir-- 
cumcifion.  But  as  the  matter  is,  the  public  muLt  ftlU  h^ 
uninformed,  or  elfe  take  my  new  invention,  th2  good  old" 
Bible  reprefentation  of  this  matter. 

8.  Another  noticeable  error  of  Mr.  A.'s  Is  his  implicit 
denial,  that  the  Piedobaptiil  theory  is  clogged  with  the 
abfurd  principle,  and  practice  too,  fo  far  as  their  principle 
and  practice  agree,  that  if  a  South-Carolina  planter  be 
converted;  his  houfehold  are  difclples  of  courfe,  and  are 
to  be  baptized,  though  his  flaves  be  5000.  Thisisjuft  their 
abfurd  principle  and  pradice  too,  fo  far  as  they  are  con- 
Gilent  with   themfelves  ;  and  Mi\  A.  has  implicitly  denied 


Mr.  Aujl'ms  Mijlakes.  49 

it,  and  as  he  confefTes  it  to  be  a  clog  to  their  theorTr  rf  true, 
and  alio  an  abiardity,  it  appears  to  me  expedient,  in  this 
place,  to  prove  the  fait  againll  their  theory,  and  thus  to 
lix  an  abfurdity  upon  their  practice,  and  clog  it  as  much 
as  I  can.  But  in  the  fir.l  place,  I  will  give  the  public  his 
attempt  to  get  off. 

In  page  46,  his  words  are  thefe  :  fays  he  to  me,  "  In 
page  62,  you  fay,  refpeding  Abraham's  houfehold,  *  But 
let  it  be  more  or  lefs,  one  thing  is  certain,  they  were  all  to 
be  circumcifed  on  account  of  Abraham's  being  a  good  man, 
full  of  faith.'  That  which  is  certain  can  eafiiy  be  prov- 
ed. Proof  is  not  furnifhed  ;  and  it  is  beheved  never  can 
be  furnifhed.  Yet  you  would  make  ufe  of  this  a/Tertion  to 
clog  the  Psedobaptill  theory  with  the  abfurdity  in  pradice, 
that  if  one  of  us  ihould  convert  a  South-Carolina  planter, 
into  a  difciple,  we  of  courfe  make  difciples  of  all  his  flaves, 
though  they  were  5000." 

Thus  fays  Mr.  A. ;  and  now  what  I  wiih  is  to  prove  this 
abfurdity  upon  his  theory,  and  thus  clog  it  as  much  as  I 
can,  and,  if  poffible,  fpoil  the  ili-gotteiT  credit  of  this  juda» 
izing  theory,  and  (lop  its  prcgrefs. 

My  arguments,  by  which  to  accomplifh  this,  are  two. 
I.  They  take  the  law  of  circumcifion  as  their  example 
and  jufiification.  Their  principle  is  founded,  or  built  upon 
the  law  of  circumcifion.  This  law  is  recorded  Gen.  xvii. 
12.  Thus,  *•'  He  that  is  eight  days  old  fhall  be  circumcifed 
among  you,  every  man-child  in  your  generations ;  he  that 
is  born  in  the  houfe,  or  bought  nv'ith  -tnomy  of  any  Jlrangery 
which  is  not  of  thy  feed."  This  is  the  law,  and  if  the  read- 
er wifh  for  any  explanation,  it  is  furniftied  to  his  hand  in 
verfe  23,  where  Abraham's  obedience  to  it  is  thus  ex- 
prefTed.  "  And  Abraham  took  Ilhmael  his  fon,  and  all 
that  were  born  in  his  houfe,  and  all  thai  lij^re  bought  la'ith 
monev,  every  jnile  among  the  inj.n  of  Ahrahain  s  houfe^  and  cir- 
cumcifed the  flefh  of  their  forefkin,  in  the  felf-f  ime  day,  as . 
God  had  fuid  unto  him."  Here  is  the  law,  obedience  and 
example,  which  Psdobaptills  profefs  to  follow,  and  on  this 
account,  and  in  this  particular,  they  are  juLfly  ftyled,  Juda- 
izing  Chriifians.  But  my  prefent  buli'iefs  is  to  Paow, 
that  their  fentiment,  or  principle,  leads  them  to  baptize  50 
or  500,  or  5000  flaves,  belonging  to  a  South-Carolina 
planter,  provided  he  be  chrillianized.  My  argument  is 
this.  Abraham  had  many  fervants  born  in  his  houfe,  and 
bought  tuith  hh  mon^y,  years  before  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion was  given.     He  had  3  18  trained  foldiers  or  fervants 


£0  Second  Exj)o^fiiIon  of 

born  in  his  hoafc,  and  how  many  bought  with  his  moner 
we  know  not.  He  might  have  many  more,  before  th^  d  ly 
of  their  circumcifion.  For  afterwards  he  was  called  a 
mighty  prince^  Gen.  xxiii.  6.  Now  all  thefe,  which  Abraham 
poifefFed  on  the  day  of  circumcifion,  let  them  be  50,  or 
500,  or  5000,  were  all  circumcifed,  on  account  of  Abra- 
ham's being  a  good  man,  fall  of  faith,  or  on  account  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  was  made  with  him. 
The  principle  of  the  Pcedobaptifls  is  founded  on  this  very 
bufmefs,  and  is  meant  to  fquare  with  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion;  and  their  praiflice  with  the  pra:lice  of  Abra* 
ham.  Befides,  their  principle  is,  that  every  believing  pa- 
rent or  mailer  of  his  family,  is  to  his  family  as  Abraham 
iX'as  to  his.  Hence  my  charge  againil  them  is,  that  to  be 
coniillent  with  their  principle,  and  to  go  through  wita 
their  theory,  they  mull  baptize  a  converted  Sjuth-Caroiin  i 
planter  and  all  his  houfehold,  whether  he  have  5,  50,  500,  or 
5000  flaves  belonging  to  it.  Upon  the  fame  principle,  I  might 
add,  tn  he  confijient  lu'ith  thtmfAves^  they  would  be,  in  tiiis 
particular,  downright  papilis,  and  baptize  the  fubje^ili  of  a 
mighty  prince  J  becaufe  he  v/as  converted.  If  this  principle 
be  a  gofpel  one,  it  will  bear  examination,  and  not  be  the 
worfe  for  being  pra<5lifed  to  perfecftion.  If  it  be  abfurd 
when  pradifed  thoroughly,  it  is  not  the  lefs  fo  when  prac- 
tifed  fmally.  The  only  difference  is,  the  abfurdity  does 
not  appear  fo  glaring. 

2.  My  other  argument  is.  That  all  the  evidence  for  in- 
fant baptifm,  to  v/hich  the  P^edobuptids  can  make  any  plau- 
fible  pretenfion,  is  founded  upon  the  above  abfurd  principle. 
They  can  make  no  plea,  that  the  families  of  the  jailor, 
Stephanus  and  Lydia  were  baptized  upon  the  faith  of  the 
parent  or  m.ifler,  but  upon  the  principle,  that  they  were 
thus  baptized,  becaufe  Abraham's  family  were  circumcifed 
upon  his  faith.  Now  I  argue  thus,  If  it  be  according  to 
the  gofpel  to  bapfize  a  fi-nall  family,  or  houfehold,  on  the 
faith  of  a  believing  parent  or  m  ifler,  it  is  according  to  the 
fame  gofpel  to  baptize  a  lirger  onj  ;  and,  if  the  principle 
be  good,  the  larger  the  better,  if  there  be  any  ad\^antage 
in  it,  for  then  the  m^re  will  be  proated.  Becaufe  [  thu5 
argue,  Mr.  A.  charges  me  with  wilh; ng  to  clog  the  P.eio- 
baptid  theory  with  this  abfardicy  in  praclice.  I  confefi,  I 
am  not  for  halving  matters,  but  for  having  good  principles 
thoroughly  praflifed,  and  the  abfivdity  of  bad  ones  fally  to 
appear* 


Mr,  Aufiin's  M'ylakcs.  51 

I  ccr.f.cU'r  iryft'lfas  l.iivirg  turned  k'mg^s  ii'alence.  I  fee 
Try  fornxr  errors,  i^nd  rcnourcc  them  ;  I  ct^ridemn  them, 
as  ha\-irg  been  prr.diled  by  iryfclf,  arid  cannct  juflify  them 
as  praftiled  by  others. 

li"  my  argiin^erts  be  j\:(l,  Mr.  A.  ccrfcfles  tl  eir  prr!.*5tlce 
is  abfiird  ;  or  that  it  is  abfurd  to  piadife  upon  fnch  a  the- 
ory. If  the  pradiice  be  abiurdj  the  theory  is  fo  too.  If 
my  arguirents  be  Lot  juft,  if  they  >e  not  founded  upon  the 
Tery  principle  of  their  pradice,  they  are  invited  to  expofe 
thtm,  and  to  do  it  thoroughly.  But  if  my  arguments  be 
corrcctj  then  tlxy  are  invited  to  leave  their  abfurd  pratftice, 
and  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord,  to  the  help  of  the 
Lord  againil:  the  mighty. 

Upon  the  fame  page,  whence  he  took  the  laft  quotation, 
^■r.  A.  tells  me  that  he  higljly  eAeems  the  gofpel  ordi- 
nance rf  baptifm.  ;  it  is  hf.ped  that  his  future  v.ritings  will 
bear  a  better  tcfiiii.ony  in  his  favour.  Cn  the  f^m^e  page, 
he  alfo  informis  m.e,  he  has  cxpofed  himfelf  to  great  perfon- 
a!  tv;'";'a-  to  guard  ihe  facrednefs  of  that  ordinance.  Would 
it  not  be  veil  for  him  to  expofe  himfelf  to  a  few  more,  that 
he  mi^ht  keep  the  ordinance  according  to  the  com.miand- 
ment  ;ind  pattern  given  ? 

In  page  48,  he  (through  an  error  of  judgm^cnt^  charges 
me  w  ith  cf  ndcm.ning  nyielf.  His  wrrds  are.  "  You  have 
attempted  to  fix  opprobiium  upon  the  dodlrine  of  Pasdo- 
biiptiim,  by  deriving  it  from  the  foul  fink  of  popery,  and 
upr-n  its  abetters,  as  cnlified  under  the  banners  of  Antichrift.. 
But  you  have  condemned  ycurfelf  with  rcfped  to  the  firft, 
by  c(5ncccing,  th.at  fprinkling  was  praiftifed  in  the  cafe  of 
clinicks  befc  re  popery  exifted,  ard  tl  at  infant  baptifm  was 
in  general  pradi^ed  in  the  days  of  St.  Auftin." 

Kerc  the  grcd  man's  error  is  in  his  judgment.  I  have 
never  crnccded  that  fprinkling,  for  goipcl  baptifm,  was 
pra<5"tifed  in  the  cafe  of  clinicks,  or  in  ?;ry  other  cafe,  before 
popery  eiified.  The  myf.ct^j  cf  this  huqu'dy  began  to  work 
even  in  the  apofties'  d:.'ys,  and  popery  hnd  gotten  con- 
fioerr-b:e  footing,  when  they  fuhdiuitcd  f]'nnkl'ng  in  the 
cafe  of  lick  perions,  for  gofpel  baptifm.  When  St.  Auftin 
fl-curifiied,  popery  was  in  its  full  tide  of  fucccf5ful  exper- 
iment. It  had  new  fpread  over  ni^hly  all  what  was  call- 
ed the  Chiiflian  world," fave  the  Heretics,  as  the  Pi'odchyJD- 
tifts  called  thtm,  in  the  vallies  of  Piedmont.  Iheie  Cod 
preferved  from  the  mark  of  the  IVaft  ;  and  they  never 
iuhm.ittcd  to  the  p(  v  t  rs  rjf  Autichrifl.  Ihefe  were  the 
progenitors  ef  the  picjcnt  Baptifis  \    and  by  the  Romanifts, 


52  Second  Expofition  of 

they  were  ftyled  the  oldefl  herefy  in  the  world.  Hence, 
Mr.  A.  inftead  of  {towing  a  contradiction  of  mine,  has 
through  error  of  judgment,  added  one  to  the  number  of  his 
miftakes.  However  foul  the  fmk  of  pcpery  is,  from  that 
came  Paedobaptifm,  and  it  is  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  the 
man  of  fm.  Befides,  all  who  plead  for  it,  plead  for  the 
principal  ordinance  and  prac'tice  of  Antichrift.  Chrift 
hath  no  where  commanded  Paedobaptifm  ;  nor  has  he  in 
any  place  commiffioned  his  minifters,  either  to  preach  or 
pra(5tife  it.     But  the  Pope  hath  done  both. 

In  his  49th  page,  he  appears  to  have  fome  clonng  ftrokes. 
"  On  the  whole,  fays  he,  the  controverfy  between  you  and 
me  is  brought  to  an  iffue.  It  is  this.  The  foundation  of  your 
Jljadonvy  fabric  was  laid  in  ajfertion  :  The  fuperfruciure  iocs 
reared  in  ajfertion  :  It  has  been  attempted  to  be  holden  up  by  of 
ferticn  ;  and  it  has  at  lajl  vatiijhed  as  a  mere  Jhadowy  thing.''^ 
Even  this  aflertion  requires  a  little  proof.  By  it  Mr.  A. 
expe<51ed  to  give  the  finifning  ftroke  to  the  taking  aivay  of 
n>y  defenjive  armor.  I  frankly  confefs,  it  hatli  as  riiuch  pow- 
erful eihcacy  towards  removing  it,  as  any  palfage,  or 
even  page  which  preceded  it.  I  might,  however,  have 
excepted  the  two  fii  (I  lines  of  his  title  page  ;  for  there  he 
tells  us  that  it  is  done.  Had  he  not  given  us  the  infor- 
mation,inthe  firft  outfet  of  his  pamphlet,  that  Mr.  Merrill's 
defenji-i>s  armor  was  taken  from  him,  no  perfon  who  un- 
derftood  the  controverfy,  would  have  gathered  the  idea 
from  any  thing  which  followed. 

'  We  will  now  turn  our  attention  for  a  momient  to  his  laft 
Letter,  in  which  he  makes  fome  obfervations  upon  my 
clofing  one  to  him.  In  tliis  he  does  not  appear  in  perfectly 
good  humour.  All  his  fentences  do  not  appear  like  apples 
of  geld  in  pidures  of  filver.  He  fays  that  the  court,  by 
wliich  his  errors  were  tried,  is  not  in  the  Bible'.  This  is 
alfo  his  miftake  ;  for  all  the  texts  in  the  Bible.,  which  fpeak 
of  a  particular  fubject,  is  die  Bible  with  relpecl  to  that  fub- 
je6l.  He  alfo  tells  m^e  that  I  entirely  loll  fiidit  of  the  ob- 
ject which  I  ihould  have  had  in  view,  the  iupport  of  my 
own  theory  and  pra<5lice.  This  is  alfo  his  miftake  ;  for  I 
kept  in  fight  the  fupport  of  my  own  theory  and  pradice, 
and  the  deftrudion  of  his.  He  farther  fays,  That  the  court, 
w^hich  was  eredted  was  not  the  one  to  which  he  appealed. 
This  is  a  third  miftake  ;  for  it  was  the  Bible  with  refpe(5t 
to  his  three  great  Antichriftian  errors  ;  which  are,  fprink- 
)ing  for  goipel  baptifm,  manifeft  unbelievers  the  fubjeds 


Mr.  Auj^ln's  MijMes.  53 

of  brptilrn,  and  communion  with  unbaptizcd  pcrfons.     B/ 
the  Bible  thele  tliree  were  tried  and  condemned.      Had 
Mr.  A.  when  he  wrote  his  reply,  poflefTed   a   folemn  fenfe 
of  this  truth,  that  by  the  Bible   he,   as  well   as   I,   mu(t  be 
judged  at  the  Lilf  day,  he  would,  prcbably,  have  omitted fev- 
eral  of  his  cpitliets,  and  have  endeavoured  to  prove,  unlefs 
he  were  convinced  of  his  errors,  that  though  the  court  was  a 
good  one,  yet  he  had  not  a  fair  hearing.     Had  he  come 
forward,   and  have  fnov/n  that  any  of  the   witneffes  were 
bribed,  or  rather  that  the  fenfe   of  their  teftimony   was 
perverted,  and  requeued  a  re-hearing,  and  obtained  it,  as  he 
might  have  done,  and  then  have  brought  forward  feme  of 
the  witnefll's  again,  and  have  fhown,  in  open  court,  that  they 
juftified  his  principle  and  practice,  and   condemned  mine, 
then  he  would  jultly  have  caft  the  charges  upon  me  ;  but 
to  be   out  of  humour,  as  I  have  {^t\\  fome,  after  trial  had, 
is  nf^t  the  beft  way   to   prove  the  innocency  of  his   errors. 
Had  he  have  confidered  my  ufage  towards  him^not  of  the 
bell  kind,   fureiy  his   wifdom  was  to  have  proved  his  fen- 
tence  unjull.     Then  would  he  have  righteoufly  brought  on 
me  the  two-fold  crime   of  jufiifying  the  guilty,  and  con- 
demning the  innocent ;  yes,  had  he  been  able  to  have  pro- 
duced one  text,  which  fhould  fpeak  for  him,  he  would  have 
been  juilined,  according  to  a  (latement  which  I    made  at 
the  time,  and   before  the  court,  in  thefe  words,     <  Ever>- 
text  is  allowed  to  be  a  good  witrefs,  and  to  polTefs  evidence 
fufiicient  to  fet   the  accufed  free,  upon  bearing   tefiimony 
in  his  favour.'      Had  he  have  found   one  text  to   liis  pur. 
pofe,  he  could  have  been  acquitted  before  the   public,  be- 
fore his  own  confcience,   and  alfo  before  the  Judge  of  all. 
But  fo  long  as  he  fnall  fubllitute  hard  words  for  hard   ar- 
gument, he  may  not  be  fully  acquitted  before  either,  an4 
will  convince  but  fe-.v  that  his  caufe  is  good. 

However,  I  by  no  means  fault  him  for  bringinc^  no  .tcrt 
to  his  help  ;  for  I  knew  beforehand  that  he  had  none  to 
bring.  Other  wife  I  Ihould  not  have  been  fo  bold  in  con° 
demning  his  errors,  and  in  warning  him  to  forfake  them. 
His  fault  is  in  retaining  them  after  they  have  been  tried  by 
the  Bible  and  found  tuanihy.  I  well  knew,  that  a  degree 
of  feverity  was  ufed  with  his  errors,  but  as  truth  v/ould 
fully  juftify  fuch  a  ufe,  it  was  confidered  that  the  obflinacy 
of  the  cafe  called  for  it.  Error  muft  be  treated  as  beinr^  what 
it  is,  the  enemy  of  God  and  man ;  and  the  grofs  errors  cfMr- 

F 


54  Second  Expcfition  of 

A.  may  call  for  feverer  treatment  ftill ;  for  they  belong  to 
the  man  of  fm,  whom  the  Lord  Mill  condemn  with  the 
Spirit  o^  his  mouth,  and  will  dellroy  with  the  brightnefs  of 
his  coming. 

Did  Mr.  A.  know  the  figns  of  the  times,  he  would  not 
have  written  with  fo  much  contempt  as  he  has  done.  His 
courage,  and  that  of  his  brethren  too,  in  their  wicked  oppo- 
fition  againft  the  Baptifts  willfoon fail  them.  He  doubtlefs 
recolleds  what  a  bloody  decree  was  iffued  againft  the  Jews, 
in  the  days  of  Haman,  the  fon  of  Hamedat]:a,  the  Agagite, 
and  figned  in  Ahafuerus's  name,  and  fealed  with  the  king's 
feal,  to  deRroy,  to  kill,  and  caufe  to  perilh,  all  Jews, 
throughout  the  hundred  twenty  and  feven  provinces,  from 
India  to  Ethiopia.  Probably  he  has  alfo  recollection  of 
the  decree  which  was  iffued  at  Efther's  fuit,  by  which  the 
Jews  had  full  liberty  to  Hand  for  their  lives,  and  to  deftroy, 
to  fiay  and  caufe  their  enemies  to  perifh.  This  hath  been 
written  in  the  book  of  Efiher,  for  our  learning.  The  Pope 
and  his  conclave,  prompted  by  their  rooted  hatred  towards 
the  baptized  church,  have  iflued  their  decree  againft  them 
to  deflroy,  to  kill  and  caufe  them  to  peiifli.  But  a  very 
different  decree  is  now  gone  forth,  of  which  Mr.  A.  hath 
either  not  heard,  or  yet  diibelieves.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
that  the  Baptifts  themfelves  have  not,  generally,  had  the 
information,  or  dare  n»t  fully  credit  it,  that  they  now  have, 
according  to  the  decree  of  the  King,  a  perfedl  liberty  to 
ftand  for  their  hves,  and  to  defcroy,  to  flay  and  caufe  to 
perifh,  by  the  fword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of 
God,  not  Mr.  A.'s  errors  only,  but  alfo  all  the  laws,  tra- 
ditions, (latutes  and  ordinances  of  antichrift.  I'he  report 
of  this  decree  may  be  to  Mr.  A.  like  as  the  fecond  decree 
of  Ahafuerus  was  to  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  whilil  they 
difbelicved  it  ;  but  it  will  have  a  very  different  effecl:  upon 
both  him  and  his  brethren,  -when  the  ceitainty  fliall  be 
known,  which  they  will  foon  know,  and  to  their  coff  too, 
except  they  fpeediiy  repent  of  their  hatred  to  the  baptized 
church,  it  is  this  decree  which  emboldens  me  to  (land  for 
my  hfe  in  the  prefent  controverfy  ;  and  fills  m.e  with  ex- 
peftation,  that  as  it  happened  to  the  Jews,  that  they  had 
rule  over  them  that  hated  them,  fo  it  f^iall  foon  be  that  all 
who  walk  in  all  the  ftatutes  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 
blamelcfs,  fhall  be  in  honour,  and  all  their  advcrfarie:^  con- 
foufided.  Let  me  not  feem  to  Mr.  A.  or  to  the  i  eader, 
like  Lot  to  his  fons-in  law. 


Mr.  Auflin's  Myiakes.  SS 

111  his  concliifion,  he  informs  the  reader  that  his  pubhc 
correfpondence  wldi  me  is  clofed.  It  might  have  been  a.^ 
well  for  him,  and  more  for  the  credit  of  his  errors,  to  have 
taken  Solomon's  advice,  and  to  have  left  off  contention 
before  he  had  meddled  with  it.  But  he  adds,  p.  53> 
*'  Should  any  other  appear  to  advocate  the  doclrine,  that 
immerfion  is  the  exclufive  mode  of  baptifm,  and  eifential 
to  it,  he  will  not  be  entitled  to  a  public  reply,  unlefs  he 
fhall  make  ufe  of  fome  new  topic  of  argument,  or  give  old 
arguments  a  much  more  plaufible  form  than  they  have 
yet  allumed.  And  he  mull  be  holden  to  the  Scriptures  as 
his  fource  of  evidence,  becaufe  there  can  be  no  eifential 
doctrine,  inftitution,  or  duty,  which  the  Scripture  itfelt 
does  not  clearly  afcertain." 

It  is  not  difficult  to  affign  the  reafon  why  Mr.  A.  rc- 
quefts  his  opponents  to  employ  fome  new  topic  of  argument ; 
for  their  prefent  topics,  plain  fcrlpture  precept  and  example, 
with  their  deductions,  he  finds  very  hard  to  be  managed. 
Yet,  to  the  confufion  of  his  whole  fcheme,  he  fays,  "  There 
can  be  no  eifential  do<flrine,  inftitution,  cr  duty,  which  the 
Scripture  itfelf  does  not  clearly  afcertaliV  Upon  this  dec- 
laration of  Mr.  A.'s  the  following  queftions  are  propofed 
to  the  reader  : 

1.  Do  the  Scriptures  clearly  afcertain,  that  fprinkling  is 
the  matter  of  gofpel  baptifm  \ 

2.  Does  the  Scripture  clearly  afcertain,  that  infants  and 
houfeholds  of  unbelieving  adults  are  the  fubjedts  of  gofpel 
baptifm  ? 

3.  Does  the  Scripture  clearly  afcertain,  that  unbaptized 
perfons  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  communion  ? 

The  anfwer  to  each  of  thefe  is  thus,  that  it  Joes  not.  Then 
the  conclufion  from  Mr.  A.'s  premifes  is  clearly  this.  That 
fprinkling  for  baptifm  ;  that  inf^iats,  or  unbelieving  houfe- 
holds for  the  fubjecls  of  baptifm  ;  and  that  communion 
with  the  unbaptized,  are  not  eflential  doctrines,  inftitutions, 
or  duties.  Hence,  he  is  amufmg  the  pubHc,  and  earneftly 
contending  for  uneffential  matters.  This  conclufion  isjuft, 
for  it  is  indeed  a  trutli,  that  his  antifcriptural  notions  are 
not  effential,  fave  to  the  fupport  of  worldly  inftitutions,  and 
to  the  caufe  of  the  man  of  fin. 

What  we  have  more  to  offer,  is  a  few  conclufions  from 
what  we  have  pafted  over. 

1.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.  has  a  weak  and  bad 
caufe  to  defend.     For  no  good  man,  poffefllng  talents  and 


56  Second  Expofition  of 

education,  could  ufe  fuch  falfe  and  beggarly  arguments, 
make  fo  many  miftakes,  be  guilty  of  Aich  mifreprefenta- 
tlons,  and  fill  Jiis  pages  with  notorious  errcrs,  in  the  defence 
of  a  good  caufe,  or  in  the  fupport  of  truth. 

2.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.'s  whole  performance, 
which  we  have  examined,  is  one  continued  heterogeneous 
mixture  cf  faife  arguments,  weak  arguments,  miftakes, 
mifreprefentations,  and  errors ;  for  we  have  attended  to 
almoiL  every  page,  and  have  found  them  to  be  of  this  de- 
fcription. 

3.  We  conclude,  that  his  reafons  for  quitting  the  field 
of  public  correfpondei\ce  v/ith  the  Author,  are  but  too  ob- 
vious. We  would  fugged  the  idea,  whether  it  would  not 
be  advifable  for  him  to  change  his  fide,  or  never  enter  the 
like  field  again. 

4.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.  who  is  no  doubt  a  worthy 
diarader  and  a  man  of  fenfe,  has  been  raifed  up  by  the 
Lord  to  expofe  the  weaknefs  of  his  antichriillan  caufe  ; 
for  he  is  a  man  of  too  refined  an  education  to  ufe  fo  much 
ribaldry  as  too  many  of  his  denomination  have  done  ;  at 
the  fame  time,  he  is  a  man  of  too  much  honeily,  not  to 
expofe  his  real  fentiments  ;  and  finding  no  judicious  argu- 
ments to  fupport  what  he  really  believed  true,  he  has,  with 
as  much  plauhbility  as  he  could,  made  ufe  of  the  beft  argu- 
ments w]]ic]i  hl'3  bad  fide  aftorded,  Thefe  arguments,  in 
their  very  nature,  having  no  tendency  to  bring  conndlion 
to  unprejudiced  minds,  will  ferve  to  open  to  public  view 
the  weaknefs  and  wickednefs  of  that  caufe  which  fo  labours, 
and  has  need  of  fuch  management  in  its  defence.  Nothing 
is  wanting,  to  the  ruin  of  his  caufe  and  errors,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  candid  and  imparti.il  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity, but  to  liave  them  clearly  expofcd.  A  few  more  fuch 
publications  as  his  Lifi:  will  accomplifh  this  bufinefs. 

5.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.  has  no  confident  notion 
of  that  kingdom,  called  Chrid's  "c'ljilk  church,  which  the 
God  of  heaven  was  to  fet  up  in  the  time  of  the  four  great 
monarchies,  or  during  the  days  of  thofe  kings  fpoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet ;  for  in  parts  of  his  pamiphlet  he  ap- 
pears to  knov/  not  any  diiFerence  between  (he  fpiriiual  king- 
dom of  Chrill  in  this  world,  which  hath  continued  at  lead 
fmce  the  converfion  of  Abel,  and  his  vjfihle  kingdom,  which 
was  fet  up  during  the  Roman  empire,  and  v/as  at  hand 
when  the  Baptifi  came  preaching  in  the  wilderncfi  and 
baptizing  in  Jordan. 


Mr.  AwTins  Miflakeu  S7 

6.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.'s  three  great  errors,  which 
are  fprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptifm,  manifeil  unbelievers 
the  fubjecH^  of  baptifm,  and  unbaptized  church  members 
and  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  with  them,  are  all  of 
a  piece  ;  for  he  has  not  found,  nor  can  he  find,  one  text  of 
fcripture  to  fupport  either  of  them.  Eefides,  each  of  thefe 
errors  llrongly  tends  to  deface  and  diforganize  the  vifible 
church  of  Chrift.  They  muil  therefore  be  parts  of  the 
man  of  fm. 

7.  We  conclude,  that  whilil:  Mr.  A.  has  been  writing 
his  Letters  to  the  Author,  he  had  not  for  his  main  objec'c 
the  knowledge  and  defence  of  the  truth ;  for  if  he  had, 
evidence  would  not  have  failed  him  in  every  particular, 
nor  would  he  have  made  fuch  notorious  miftakes  and  blun- 
ders in  every  page.  It  is  not  truth,  but  error,  which  com- 
pels men  to  go  fnch  a  crooked  courfe  as  he  has  travelled. 
Nor  does  truth  require  hard  v*'ords  to  be  em_ployed  in  her 
defence  ;  her  argumcnis  are  fufliciently  trying  for  the  erro- 
neous to  endure.  Hard  words  are  ufually  the  attendants 
on  a  bad  cauie  ;  but  truth  is  encompalTed  \vith  hard  and 
feverc  arguments.  To  cppofe  the  truth  is  like  kicking 
againft  fharp  pointed  pins  ;  the  more  refolute  the  oppofi- 
tion,  the  more  does  the  oppofer  injure  himfelf.  Would 
Mr.  A.  look  into  the  didurbances  (Tf  his  awn  bofom,  he 
W'ould  find  they  are  unlike  wliat  thofe  feel,  who  are  calmly> 
yet  earneftly  vindicating  the  v/ays  of  God  to  men. 

8.  We  conclude,  that  a  real  Chriftian  mud  be  greatly 
blinded  by  prejudice,  to  believe  Mr.  A.'s  error?,  when  tliere 
is  not  one  text  in  the  Bible  which  fpeaks  a  word  in  favour 
of  cither  of  them,  and  when,  at  the  fame  time>  every  text 
v>'hich  fpeaks  of  the  fubjedl  is  directly  againft  them,  and 
explains  and  d'jfends  the  oppofite;  a>  the  reader  may  fee 
by  reading  the  Author's  twelfth  Letter  to  Mr.  A. 

>  Lajlly.  "We  conclude,  tliat  as  the  baptized  church  have 
the  open  volume  of  revelation  on  their  lide,  and  the  Cap- 
tain of  the  Lord's  holl  for  them,  and  as  the  time  is  now 
come  in  which  they  iliould  have  liberty,  full  hberty,  to 
fiand  for  their  lives,  they  Ihould  now  be  firong  in  the  Lord 
and  in  the  power  of  his  might,  putting  on  the  wijole  armour 
of  God,  that  they  may  be  able  to  ftand  againft  the  wiles 
of  the  devil ;  for  they  indeed  hav;;  to  wreltle,  not  merely 
againft  flefh  and  blQ.od,  but  againft  principalities,  againft 
powers,  againft  the  rulers  of  the  darkncfs  of  this  worlds 


38  Second  Expofition^  ^c. 

againft  fplrltual  wickednefs  in  high  places.  At  fuch  a  time 
Heaven  may  well  expeci  every  Chriftian  to  do  his  duty  ; 
then  will  the  conflict  be  fhort,  and  the  Lord's  battle  glori- 
ouily  won.  As  Joab  faid  to  his  brother,  (2  Sam.  x.  12.) 
at  the  critical  moment  when  an  hard  fought  battle  was  juil 
commencing,  fo  I  fay  to  my  baptized  brethren,  Be  of  good 
courage,  and  let  us  play  the  men  for  our  people,  and  for 
the  cities  of  our  God  ;  and  the  Lord  do  that  which  feemedi 
him  good. 

With  defnes  for  Chrift's  rifmg  kingdom, 

I  am,  the  reader's  and  trutn's  friend, 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 

Sedgwick,  Awgust  ii,  i2o6, 


IN  a». 


BOOKS 

For  falc  by  Maxxing  cff  L  orixg^  No.  2;  Cornhilh 


THE  Chriftian  Banner.  A  Sermon,  preach- 
ed before  the  Lincoln  Baptized  Affbciation,  and  at 
their  requeft  made  pubHc.  By  Daniel  Merrill,  a.  m. 
\^Price  izk  cts. 

Mr.  Merrill's  Seven   Sermons    on  the  Mode  and   Sub- 
jecT-s  of  Baptifm.  \^Price  37^  cts^ 

Mr.  Merrill's  Twelve  Letters  to  Mr.  Auftin. 

\_Pnce  31^  cts, 
Mr.  Merrill's  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

IP  rice  25  ciu 

Letters    occafioned    by    the    Rev.     Samuel 

Worcester's  Two  Difconrfes  refpeciing  the  Perpetuity  and 
Provif.on  of  God's  gracious  Covenant  with  Abraham  and 
his  feed.  Detecting-;  by  plain  Scripture,  (tubborn  facts,  and 
fober  reafon,  fome  of  his  grofs  mifreprefentations,  unfound- 
ed affertionsj  and  iophiftical  arguments.  By  Daniel  Mer- 
rill. IPrice  ^i-^c*s. 
Collins's  Setond   Edition   of  the  Quarto  BIBLE,  with 

Oftervald's   Notes,  Pl.ite?,  and  Concordance Collins's 

Bible  has  obtained  celebrity  as  being  the  moft  correct  of 
■any  ever  printed  in  America. 

An  afTortmont  of  Carey's  Family  Bible. 
Puller's  Gofpel  its  own  Wicnefs.  IPr'ce  one  doL 

P^uller's  Life  of  Pearc<2.  [Price  one  doL 

P'uller's  Backllider.  ^Prlce  (ii\  cts, 

Burnet's  Life  of  the  Earl  of  Rochefler.  [Price  50  cts, 
Priendly  Vifit  to  the  Houfe  of  Mourning.  [Price  20  cts. 
Abbadie  on  the  Deity  of  Jefus  Chrift.  [Price  one  dol. 

The    Second    Edition    of     the    Pfalmodift's 

Ailillant  ;  containing  an  Original  Compofition  of  Pfalm 
and  Hymn  Tunes;  together  with  a  number  of  Favourite 
Pieces  frorr  dilFerent  Authors.  To  which  is  prefixed,  an  in- 
troduction to  the  Grounds  of  Mufic.     By  Abijah  Forbush. 

[Price  62\cts. 

The  Baptifm  of  Believers  only,  and  the  Par- 
ticular Communion  of  the  Baptift  Churches,  explained  and 
vindicated.  In  Three  Parts.  The  firft— publilhed  origin- 
ally in  1789  J  the  fecond — in  1794  j  the  third — an  AppeU' 


Books  for  f ale  by  Maiming  l^  Loring, 

dlx,  containing  additional  Obfervations  and  Arguments, 
vnth  Stridlures  on  feveral  late  Publications.  By  Thomas 
Baldwin.  {_Price  one  dot.  12\  cis, 
(jCj*  The  Appendix,  containing  i8o  pages  never  before 
publifhed,  may  be  bought  feparately,  price  bound  and  let- 
tered 62^  cents,  or  50  cents  Pitched  in  blue. The  Au- 
thors whofe  wiitings  againft  the  Baptifts  are  more  partic- 
ularly noticed  in  this  Appendix,  are — Rev.  Samuel  Wor- 
cefter,  of  Salezn — Dr.  Ofgood,  of  Medford — Kev.  Samuel 
Auftin,  of  Worcefrer,  and  Rev.  Peter  Edv/ards. 

The  Doclrine    of  the  Law   and    Grace  un» 

foulded  Being  a  Difcourfe  (hewing  the  different  natures  of 
tlie  Law  and  Gofpel ;  and  the  very  diffimiiar  ftates  of  thofe 
who  are  under  the  Law,  and  thofe  who  are  under  Grace,  or 
interefleJ  in  JefusChriiL     By  John  Bunvan. 

l_Price  one  dollar, 

Bunyam's    PILGPJM's   PROGRESS,  with 

Qriginal  Notes,  Preface,  Life  of  the  Autiior,  and  co- 
pious Index  to  the  whole,  by  Thomas  Scorr,  Chaplain  to 
the  Lock  Hofpital,  and  author  of  Original  Notes  and  Prac- 
tical Obfervations  on  the  Scriptures.  (With  four  copper- 
plates.) '\^Price  I  dc'L  25  cts. 

The  peaceful  Refieclions  and  glorious  Prof- 

peils  of  the  departing  Saint.  A  Difcourfe,  delivered  in  the 
meeting  houfe  of  the  Finf  BaptiTt  Church  in  Bolton,  March 
16,  1807,  at  the  interment  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Stilhnan, 
D.  D.  late  Pallor  of  faid  church.  By  Tho?4as  Baldwin, d-d. 
Paftor  of  the  Second  Baptiit  Church  in  Bofton. 

\_Pnce  20  r/x. 

Stoddard's  Safety  of  appearing  in  the  Righteoufncfs  of 
Chi'ii^.  iPrire  c::e  doh 

Dr.  Shepard's  Epiftlc  to  Mr.  Elias  Smith.  ^Prlce  25  cts. 

Huntington's  l^ank  of  Faith.  \_Price  one  doL 

Doddridge's  Rife  and  Progrefs  of  Religion  in  the    Soul. 
[^Piice  one  doL  /mailer  type  87^  cts, 

Baxter's  Call  to  the  Unconverted.  {_Pr:ce  62^  <://. 

Burder's  Oiiental  CuRoms.  [_Prke  ttvo  dots, 

Thomas  A.  Kempis's  Imitation  of  Chriil — This  book 
abounds  v.'ith  the  mod  folemn  and  weighty  thoughts  re- 
ipcding  Chrift,  eternal  things,  and  the  wortii  of  the  foul. 

[  Price  75  cts 


LETTERS 


OCCASIONED    BY 


Ref.  SAMUEL  WORCESTER'S 
TWO  DISCOURSES 

ON    THE    PERPETUITY    AND    PROVISION    OF    GOd's    GRA- 
CIOUS   COVENANT    WITH   ABRAHAM   AND  HIS   SEED. 

Detcding, 

BY  PLAIN  SCRIPTURE,  STUBBORN'  FACTS,  AND   3CBLR   XEA50N, 

SOME    OF    BIS     GROSS    MlSREPRESENTATlONSt     UNFOUNDED    ASSER- 
TIONS f    AND    SOPHISTICAL    ARGUMENTS. 


BY  DANIEL'  MERRILL,  A.  M. 

PASTOR   OF   THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST  IN   SEDGWICK. 


0  my  people !  they  which  lead  thee  caufe  thee  to  err,  and  deftxoy  the 
■way  of  thy  paths.  Ifaiab  iii.  iz. 

1  aTi  againft  them  that  prophefy  falfe  dream 6,  faith  the  Lord,  and  do 

tell  them,  and  eaufe  my  people  to  err  by  their  lies,   and  by  their 
lightnefs  Jeremiah  xxiii.  32. 

Even  from  the  days  of  your  fathers  ye  are  gone  away  from  mine  ordi- 
nances, and  have  not  kept  them.  Malachl  iii.  7. 


BOSTON: 

Printed  and  fold  by  MANNi?i<;  ^  Loring,  N°'  2^  Ccmhill- 

1807. 


District  of  MjiSSACHusETTS,  to  wit : 

BE  IT  REMFMBF.RED,  That  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  March,  in  the 
thirty-firft  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, Manning  llf  Loring,  of  the  faid  diftrlct,  have  depofited  in  this 
office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors, 
in  the  words  following,  to  ivii  .•-^"  Letters  occaiioned  by  Rev*  Samuel 
Worcefler's  Two  Dirco\irfes  on  the  Perpetuity  and  Provifion  of  God's 
gracious  Covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  Seed.  DeteAing,  by  plain 
Scripture,  ftubborn  Fads,  and  fober  ReatoD,  fome  of  his  grois  Mifrep- 
rcfentations,  unfounded  Affertions,  and  fephiflical  Arguments.  By 
Daniki  Merrill,  a.  m.  Paftor  of  the  Church  of  Chrift  in  Sedgwick," 

In  conformity  to  the  A&.  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  Adi  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
luch  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  :"  and  alfo  lo  an  A  (ft, 
entitled,  "An  Ad  fuppl^mentary  to  an  ^<ft,  entitled,  An  Ad  for  the 
encouragem.ent  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and 
¥ooks,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fich  copies,  during  the  time^ 
therein  mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of 
dcfigning,  engraving,  a^d  etching  hiftorical  and  other  prints." 

WILLIAM   S.   SHAW,   CUri  vf  tbe  D>fna  ef  Mojacbyfttts, 


IS 


TO  ALL  WHO  FEAR  GOD. 


MEN   AND  BRETHREN, 

i  OUR  attention  has  been  often  deftred^  and 
Jl'ill  lujjhed  for.  Truth  is  noiv  lUQrking  its  luay  through 
darknefs  into  light ;  it  is  f)*fiking  fure  progrefsy  like  the  rays 
tf  the  morning  ;  yet  error ^  ivhere  it  hath  held  its  empire 
longy  ivill  give  place  to  truth  but  through  invincible  necejftty. 
The  ivriter  of  the  following  Letters  is  not  altogether  ignorant 
of  the  ijifueme  of  prejudice^  and  of  flrong  prepoffejfions^ 
He  might  ivell  defpair  offuccefsy  in  his  prefcni  labours ^  ivere 
it  not  that  truth  is  Jlronger  than  all  thitigs. 

All  fuch  as  fear  God^  have  feafons  in  ivhich  their  heart 
is  ivarmed  ivith  love  to  Gody  to  truth,  and  to  duty.  In  fuch 
precious  moments,  truth  will  be  permitted  to  fpeak.  When 
it  is  thus  with  the  godly,  I  w'lfh  for  their  attention  to  what 
I  here  prefent  them. 

Should  you  thinh  that  the  author  of  the  following  pages 
has  rebuked  Mr,  Worcejier  more  fljarply  than  Paul  did 
Peter,  then,  I  pray  you,  think  again — Hath  not  Mr.  Wor^ 
sejler  done  wsrfe  than  dijpmbling  Peter  did  ? 

I  am  not  offended  at  Mr,  Worcefler's  perfon,  but  I  am 
dff ended  at  the  liberties  which  he  hath  tahfty  againfl  the 
word  and  church  of  the  living  GoD.  If  I  do  not  miflake, 
every  candid  Chriflian  will  be  offended  at  the  fame  things, 
hefore  he  fhall  have  carefully  perufed  all  thofe  falfe  and  delu' 
fory  arguments,  ajjertions,  and  inftnuations,  of  Mr.  Worcef- 
ler's,  by  which  he  would  keep  in  credit  his  Judaizing  fchemey 


(     iv     ) 

and  retain  the  vail  on  many  nvho  begin  to  fee.  My  prayer 
to  the  Father  of  Lights  is,  that  he  will  fpeedily  rend  the 
vail  from  off  the  hearts  of  his  own  people.  Truth,  and  not 
victory,  is  rny  object,  TFhether  the  reader  be  a  friend  ts 
the  writer y  or  the  reverfe,  is  not  a  matter  of  fo  much  folici- 
tude  to  me,  as  that  the  reader  be  a  friend  to  himfelf ;  then 
*will  he  feek  for  truth,  and  receive  it,  though  it  prove,  for 
the  prefent,  painful,  a?id  deJlruBive  to  his  errors. 

The  fire  of  love  and  truth  mujl  burn  up  our  errors,  or  we 
and  they  mufl  be  dejireyed  together. 

Such  as  fear  God,  cannot  be  difpleafed  with  the  requefly 
that  they  will  not  be  fo  fwayed  by  prejudice  and  cujlom,  as  to 
believe  Mr.  Worcefler  without  evidence,  and  difbelieve  me^ 
when  the  evidence  is  fully  before  them.  If  I  have  mt  fairly 
and  fully  proved  his  Sermons  to  be  erroneous  and  unfounded, 
I  afk  not  to  be  believed ;  but  if  I  have,  I  afk  this  ftmple 
quefiion — Why  will  you  not  believe  me  ?  If  the  truth  be  fet 
in  full  view,  can  you  difbelieve  and  yet  be  innocent  ? 

Deft  ring  that  truth  may  prevail,  to  the  fpeedy  ruin  of  my 
own  and  the  reader's  errors, 

I  am  his,  with  affeBion, 

THE  AUTHOR. 

SedqwicRj  October  27,  1806. 


LETTERS,     (^c, 

ADDRESSED    TO    THE    PUBLIC. 


wU^ 


^Fc*  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jluhhorn  fads^  and  ttt 
common  fenfe> 


LETTER      L 

MEN,   BRETHREN,   AND   FATHERS, 

VTlVE  audience,- for  tmth  will  Toon  go  forth 
as  brightnefs,  and  falvation  as  a  lamp  which  burneth. 
Many  are  now  running  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  is  in- 
creafing. 

The  oppofition  of  Herod,  and  the  difputings  of  the  Jew- 
ifh  dodors  and  prieils,  all  united  to  direct:  the  attention  of 
men  to  the  child  Jefus.  In  like  manner,  the  oppofition  of 
the  intereiled,  and  the  difputings  of  the  Judaizing  doctors 
and  preachers  in  our  day,  will  forcibly  call  the  public  at' 
tendon  to  what  is  written  of  the  church  of  Chrid:. 

God,  who  turns  the  hearts  of  kings  at  his  pleafure,  and 
direds  the  affairs  of  mortals,  hath  the  means  at  command, 
and  can  effect  every  purpofe. 

Great  events  are    taking    place  daily,    and   fomething 

greater  is  expected.      For  more  than   twelve  hundred  and 

fixty  years,  there  hath  been,  in  what  is  ftyleJ  the  Chriftian 

world",-  a  church,  wiiich  is  formed  much  after  the  model  of 

J:he  J evv'iiljnauonal  church.    ;.:^ 

This   church  hath  a  Pop&  ahfwerinj  to  the  Jewifh  high 

prieft,   feveaty  cardinals  for   the  feventy   elders  in  Ifrael  ; 

a  national    antichrlil.ai;  church,   anfwering  to  the  national 

Jewilh  church.     lofant  baptifm  for  Jewifh  infant  circum- 

A 


6'  Lettters  on  Rev.  5.  WorceJttr*s 

eifion.  Baptifm.  admmiftered  to  thofe^vho  bring  forth  no 
fruits,  as  evidence  of  repentance,  and  to  fuch  only,  fave  in 
thofe  inftances  where  heathens  are  converted ;  juft  as 
circumcifion  was  among  the  Jews,  &c.  &c. 

This  church  is  declared  by  her  works,  and  by  the  united 
voice  of  Proteftants,  to  be  the  man  of  fin,  the  antichrift^ 
fpoken  of  by  Paul  and  the  beloved  difciple  John.  How- 
ever, many,  if  not  moll  Proteftants,  whilft  they  have  re- 
nounced the  power  of  antichrift,  have  yet  retained  mere  or 
lefs  of  her  abominations.  Of  thefe,  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Worcefter  appears  to  pollefs  a  full  ("hare  ;  for  no  one  cf  all 
the  individuals  who  would  be  thought  a  Proteftant,  ap- 
pears more  inclined  to  fupport,  with  his  full  (Irength,  the 
bread  yet  fandy  foundation  of  popery. 

Popery  is  little  elfe,  but  Chrift  aiiity  changed  into  Juda- 
Ifm,  or  pretended  Chriftianity  Judai/.ed.  Judaifm  was  once 
good,  tor  once  it  was  fupported  by  the  laws  of  Heaven. 
But  now  fo  far  as  it  is  pradifed,  it  is  but  will-worfhip,  God 
ao  where  commanding  it. 

The  principal  idea  which  runs  through  Mr.  Worcefter's 
Two  Sermons  on  Gal.  iii.  29.  is,  X^^  -vifihle  church  formed  in 
Ahr ah am^s  family^  and  ^juh'tch  for  many  gtncrat'tons  ivas  the 
jffwfh,  is  now  the  gofpcl  church. 

What  we  Ihall,  in  the  follov\^ing  pages,  fee,  if  the  Lord 
give  light  and  oppoitunity,  is, 

I.  That  the  viiiMe  church  formed  in  Abraham's  family, 
is  not  the  gofpel  church,  but  quite  a  different  thing. 

n.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  hath,  to  give  his  Judaizrng 
fcheme  a  fembiance  of  truth  and  ccnfirtency,  dared  to 
mifappiy  the  word  of  God,  add  to  it,  and  to  take  from  it, 
and  misftate,  or  to  m'freprefent,  almofl  every  thing  which 
cam.e  within  his  eager  graip. 

It  is  difagrceable  to  the  writer',  and  it  may  be  equally 
fo  to  the  reader,  tliat  a  perfon  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  genei  al 
reputation  Ihould  fo  commit  himlelf  before  the  public,  as 
to  make  it  aii  ind'fpenfable  uuty  to  rebuke  him  before  all, 
that  others  alfo  n^ay  fear. 

My  purpofe  is,  not  to  ip.ire  Mr.  Worcefter  at  the^expenfe 
of  truth.  At  lie  fame  time,  my  wilh  is,  not  to^  expole 
him  in  a  fmgle  iuftance,  wdiere  the  caufe  of  Lhiift  does  not 
4^emand  it. 

Before  v;e  attend  particularly  to  wliat  Mr.  Worcelicr 
^3S  written,  we  v.  iii  eftabliih  the  ift.  Piopoiition  ;  Ihat  the 
viVible  church,  formed  in  Abrah:nr.'s  famiiy^  is  vj^\  tlie 
cl  ch!-rc]i;b;u  quite  a  uHler'i'nt  th'ng. 


i^'y-l 


Two  D'lfcourfes^  Effr.  7 

^rhis  1$  evident,  i.  From  the  confiJeratlon,  that  the  New 
TeiVciment  gives  us  no  intimation,  that  any  gofpel  church 
was  ever  formed  after  that  in  Abraham's  family. 

One  man  of  great  faith,  and  hundreds  without  any 
faith,  formed  into  a  church  in  Abraham's  houfe.  There 
is  nothing  hke  this  In  all  the  gofpel.  Not  the  leaft:  hint, 
that  a  gofpel  church  was  ever  formed  upon  this  principle. 

2.  The  fame  thing  is  evident  from  what  God  tells  us  by 
Mjfes,  that  when  the  Prophet,  Jefus  Chrift,  fhould  come, 
all,  who  would  not  hear  him,  fhould  be  cut  oif,  (that  is, 
excluded)  from  the  church,  or  be  deftroyed  from  among 
the  people,  Deut.  xviii.  and  Acts  iii.  Hence  the  church  in 
Abraham's  family,  and  the  gofpel  church,  are  quite  di^^r- 
ent  things.  One  compofed  of  a  great  and  good  man,  with 
his  unbelieving  houfehold  ;  the  other  made  up  of  believers, 
and  of  believers  only. 

3.  From  the  following  cnnfideration,  it  Is  manifeft,  that 
the  vifible  church  in  Abraham's  family  is  not  the  gofpei 
church,  but  quite  another  thing.  Ifai.  iiv  13.  Ix.  2,1. 
fpeaking  of  the  gofpel  church,  tells  us.  That  they  Ihall  be  all 
taught  of  God,  that  they  (hall  be  all  righteous.  The 
rrieaning,  no  doubt,  is,  that  Chriil's  vifible  church  fhall  all 
profefs,  and  appear  to  be  fo.  It  was  not  thus  in  the  church 
formed  in  Abraham's  family. 

The  fame  thing  is  true  from  the  confideration,  th.it 
the  two  churches  were  founded  upon  different  covenants, 
one  was  in  xheftjT^,  the  other  is  in  the  heari,  Gen.  xvii,  i^r, 
xxxi  If  a  vifible  church  was  founded  in  Abraham's  fan)ily, 
it  was  formed  altogether  upon  the  covenant  cf  circum- 
cifion.  For,  afiJe  from  this  covenant,  there  was  no  mote 
appearance  of  a  vifible  church  in  his  family,  than  there 
was  in  Lot's,  or  in  Job's.  If  we  call  Abraham's  circum- 
cifed  family  a  church,  though  it  be  no  where  'fo  called 
from  Genefis  to  Revelation,  it  fhould  be  carefully  obfei  ved 
of  what  it  was  made  up,  of  Abraham  a  good  man,  cf  u 
mocking  lihmael,  of  an  infant  Ifaac,  ofall  the  menfervants 
whom  Abraham  had  bought  with  his  money,  and  of  ail 
who  were  born  in  his  houfe,  from  the  oldefl  to  the  new- 
born infant. 

It  ought  alfo  to  be  well  remembered,  that  not  one  01 
the  feed  of  tht^fe  fervants,  or  infants,  continued  a  member 
of  the  vifible  church,  fave  Jacob,  the  fon  of  Ifaac.  Hence 
it  is  manifeft,  that,  notwithllanding  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion  was   in  the  ?it{h  of   Abraham's  family,  yet  the 


B  Letters  on  Rev,  Si  Worcejier^s 

privileges  and  hlejfings  comprlfed  in  the  promijes  made  to 
him,  ivere  noty  by  diiune  rights  their  inheritance.* 

All  which  gave  Abraham's  family  the  leaft  appearance 
of  a  vifible  church,  in  diftinclion  from  others,  was  their  vol- 
untary and  involuntary  fubmiflion  to  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion,  without  any  faith,  in  the  members,  generally, 
as  a  necelTary  qualification. 

What  gives  vifible  appearance  to  the  New  Teftament 
church,  is  her  being  baptized  upon  profeffing  to  have  re- 
ceived, what  God  ^ys,  Jere.  xxxi.  33,  34,  he  will  perform, 
in  her  and  for  her  ;  viz.  "  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward 
parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and  will  be  their  God, 
and  they  Ihall  be  my  people. — For  they  Ihail  all  know  me 
j^ora  the  lead  of  them  to  the  greatert  of  them,  faith  the 
Lord.'* 

i'hefe  churches  appear  very    different,    the  one  from 

^he  other.  Of  the  one,  a  thoufand  may  he  members,  be- 
caufe  they  belong  to  a  good  man's  family  ;  of  the  other, 
no  one  can  be  a  vifible  member,  bat  upon  his  being  bap- 
tized upon  a  perfonal  profeflion  of  faith  ;  for  not  otherwife 
can  any  one  appear  to  be  of  the  number  with  whom  the 
Lord  hath  made  the  new  covenant,  and  of  thof:  who  do 
fwhatfoever  Chrift  commands  them. 

5.  The  Abrahamic  church  and  the  gofpel  church  are  not 
the  fame  ;  for  what  is  faid  of  the  latter,  as  to  the  quality 
of  its  members,  was  never  applicable  to  the  former. 

Ifaiah,  fpeaking  of  the  gofpel  church,  fays,  liv.  13,  "  All 
fhy  children   Ihall  be  taught  of  the  Lord."     Chrift  men- 

^ons  this  pafTage,  as  defcriptive  of  his  followers,  John 
V.  45  Peter,  in  his  firfl:  epilUe,  chap.  ii.  ver.  9,  fpeaking 
to  the  gofpel  church,  and  defcribing  her,  fays,  "  Ye 
are  a  chofen  generation,  a  royal  priefthood,  an  holy  na- 
tion, a  peculiar  people."  This  was  never  true,  in  a  gof- 
pel fenfe,  of  the  Abrahamic,  or  Jevvifh  church. 

Befides,  what  John  faid,  Luke  iii.  9,  o{  the  peculiar 
quality  of  the  trees,  which  fhould  compofe,  or  be  the 
conftituent  parts  of  the  gofpel  church,  and  what  Paul  fays 
of  the  fame  church,  Gal.  iii.  26,  are  totally  inconfiftent 
with  the  idea,  .hat  the  Jewifh  and  gofpel  churches  are,  as 
to  the  quality  of  the  members  of  which  they  are  compoled, 
one  and  the  fame  church.     John   f^ys,    "  I'he  axe  is  laid 

•  For  the  fake  of  meeting  the  oppofcrs  upon  their  own  ground, 
I  fhall  tcnn  Abraham's  circiimcifcd  fanii'y  of  I'o Idlers,  fcrvants,  &c  a 
church;  refcrving  liberty  to  Ihow,  hereafter^  ihould  truth  fo  ic<iuij:q:. 
fhat  it  waj  not  a  church. 


Tvjo  Difcourfes^  iffc,  9 

unto  the  root  of  the  trees ;  every  tree,  therefore,  which 
hrin  ^edi  not  forth  good  fruit,  is  hewn  down."  Paul  fays 
to  the  Galatian  church,  "  Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God, 
by  faith  in  Chriil  Jefus."  As  evidence  of  his  a/Tevtion,  he 
•adds  their  profeiTion,  which  they  made  at  their  baptifm. 
For,  lays  he,  '*'as  many  of  you,  as  have  been  baptized  in- 
to Chrift   have  put  on  Chrill." 

6.  ChrilVs  abolilhing  in  his  flefh  the  enmity  (between 
Jews  and  Gentiles)  even  the  law  of  commandments,  con- 
tained in  ordinances,  to  make  in  himielt  of  twain  one  neiu 
man,  is  inconfillient  with  the  notion,  that  the  g<fpel  church 
is  but  the  Abrahamic  church  ia  continuation.    Eph.  ii.  15. 

In  the  next  chapter,  this  matter  is,  if  poffible,  itill  more 
ftrongly  evinced.  In  this  chapter  Paul  tells  us,  "  That 
the  myjlsry  of  Chrift,  in  other  ages,  was  not  made  kncivn  un- 
to \.[\e  fans  of  men,  as  it  is  noiv  revealed  unto  his  hr.iy  apof- 
tles  and  prophets,  by  the  Spirit  ;  that  the  GtntUei  Jhould  be 
fellow  beirs,  and  of  the  fann^  body,  ?^nd  parfaiers  of  his  prom- 
t/l  in  Christ,  by  the  gofr.el.**  Paul  further  tells  us.  verfe  9. 
"  That  t-e  fellov.fhip  of  the  mylicry  from  the  beginriing  of 
the  w-.rld,  hath  been  hid  in  God  "  But  on  fappofition, 
that  the  eol'pei  church  i  nothing  elfe  but  t^ic  Abr;.l:amic 
church  enlightened  and  enlarged,  where  is  the  nnitery  I 
YoT.  iureiy  Wiien  the  church  was  Jlrj}  formed  in  Abrah-im^t 
family,  a  very  large  part  of  it  was  made  up  of  Gei.tile  un- 
be  :ev  ng  members,  as  churches  formed  upon  the  fame 
m'>Jei«(?w  are.  Alfo  where  is  the  myftery,  wh'ch  hath 
been  iiid  in  God,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  with 
relarini  to  the  goipel  church,  and  the  reception  of  tJie 
Ge.itiles  into  it,  it  the  church  hath,  from  Abraham's  oay, 
be-'ii  vvhat  it  now  is,  fave  (he  hath  been  favoured  with  new 
dcr^rees  tit  light,  and  more,  or  larger  numbers  of  Gent  les 
have  been  added  fmce  Chnii's  incarnation,  than  were  added 
befvTe?-  If  matters  be  thu<<,  as  the  adverfaries  of  the  bap- 
tize i  church  contend,  what  becomes  of  what  Paul  calls  a 
newly  revealed  and  long  hidden  myllery  ?  But  on  fappofi- 
tion tiiat  t'lc^  gofpel  cbiirch  is  a  ne-iv  m  in,  or  hody^  quitt  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  wh-Vt  had  ever  been  in  the  world  before, 
eiiibiilhed  ir-on  better  prom  fes,d\\d  founded  upon  acovenant 
very  dirferent  from  that  of  circun'cifion,  even  uprn  the 
a.'u;  ~jv.-.ia:i(.  and  combining  al:  obedient  believers,  Gen- 
tiles equi!ly  as  .lews,  and  excV^din:^  ^ifcfy  tree,  'wbtther  Gen-' 
t'de  jr  f  iu,  which  orought  not  fortli  good  .*^^ruit,  then  here 
would  be  a  m)  itery.      i  his  wouht  be  a  thing,  never  before 

A   2 


iO  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/ier's 

revealed,  or  never  generally  underilood  before.  A  myf- 
tery,  which  had  been  kept  fecret  from  the  foundaiion  of  the 
lijorldy  which  had  been  hidden  in  the  bofonn  or  purpr.fc-s 
of  God.  This  indeed  appears  to  be  the  myJlery.  Such  it 
myftery  is  this,  that,  upon  its  bein^  true,  it  will  fpoil  all 
Xk\Q  theories  of  the  advocates  for  modelling  tlie  gofpel  church^ 
according  to  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  Elliier  Paul 
miftakes,  when  he  tells  us,  that  a  great  myRery,  with  re* 
fped  to  the  church,  was  revealed  to  him  and  to  the  holy 
apoftles  and  prophets  in  his  time,  or  Mr.  Worcefter  and 
his  brethren  mi  Hake,  when,  they  tell  us,  that  all  things 
have  gone  on,  as  they  were  in  Abraham's  time,  and  that 
^c  goipel  church  ts  the  fame  now,  as  the  Jewilh  ehurch 
was  three  thoaflind  years  ago  ;  and  that  there  is  no  myf-^ 
tery  about  the  matter.  The  public  will  jud^i^e  which  is, 
mod  worthy  of  credit,  Mr.  Worcefter  and  his  bjethren,_  or 
Paul  and  other  apoRles  of  the  Lamb. 

To  afcertain  this  point,  and  to  make  it  evident,  that  I 
do  not  miftake  this  myllery,  that  the  gofpel  churcli  is  a 
m^  man  or  body  of  rmn,  fuch  as  the  world  never  faw,  till 
Jefus  appeared  in  flefh,  and  to  Ihow,  that  Mr.  Worcefter 
and  his  brethren  miltake  this  mutter  wholly,  we  will  add,, 

7.  The  gofpel  church  is  not  the  vifible  church  formed 
in  Abraham's  family,  but  quite  a  different  thing,  as  is  ev- 
ident from  the  circum fiances,  which  attended  the  fetting, 
up  of  the  gofpel  church. 

r.  Ft  was  compofed  of  fuch,  and  fuch  only,  as  mani- 
feflly,  or  profefledly,  brought  forth  good  fruit.  Never 
was  it  thus  v;ith  the  church  formed  in  Abraham's  family. 

2.  It  was  ccmpofed  of  fuch,  and  fuch  only,  as  were- 
a(5tually  excommunicated  from  the  Jewifb. church,  or  liable; 
to  be  fo,  fo  far  as  Jews  made  any  part  of  it..    J-ohn   ix.  22. 

3.  The  gofpel  church  and. the  Jewilh  church  were  loth 
of  them  ex'ifltng  at  x}:\t  fame  timet  and  each  oppofed  t©  the  other ^. 
for  many  years  ;  nor  have  they  enyer  united  to  this  day.  It 
i&.  therefore  an  abfurdity  to  fay,    that  they  -ax^  one  and  the 

fame^  and  that  the  gofpel  church  is  but  a  continuation  of  the 
Jewifa,  With  equal  propriety  might  I  fiy,  after  having 
creeled  9,  new  houfe,  whilft  the  old  one  is  ftanding  in  lull. 
view,  they  are  both  one^  the  neiu  one  is  but  a  conilnuct'tji  rf 
the  old:  A  perfon  would  be  thought  infane  to  talk  thus 
about  things  which  now  are  ;.  bur  men  of  learning  and 
reputation  may  talk  thus  about  tilings  which  have  long< 
iitice  been,  and  he  l^ill  reputed  v.-^fe. 


T%vo  Difcourfesy  l^c*  1 1 

A  world  of  additional  evidence  raicri>t  be  pro  jiiced  ta 
ftiovv.  ifi.ic  the  church  formed  in  Abraiiani  s  tamiiy  is  not 
liie  '^oipei  church,  hxi  q  lite  a  dixterent  tiimg.  But  Iharteii 
to  Jay  heiore  the  puiilic  the  inconiitlencies,  ablurdities,  .md 
i.ibyiinth  of  errors  mu>  Wiiich  this  notion  i-iatii-  led-  iNhv 
Woiceicer  ;  aad  in  the  mean  t^me,  remain, 
The  public's  devoted  fervant, 

For  Chriif  s  aiid  the  goipei'b  fake,  &c; 


We  appeal  io  the  Blhlc^  to  Jluhhorn  fads^  and ^^ 
common  fsnje. 


LETTER     IL 

MEN,  BRETHREN,   AND    FATHERS, 

It  is  now  gofpel  times;  in  which  ifaiah  tells 
us  that  the  way  of  hohnefs  fhnli  be  plain,  fo  that  the  way- 
faring man,  though  a  fool,  unlearned,  fhouid  not  err  there- 
in. It  is,  however,  to  be  undertfooJ,  tliat  thefe  wayfaring-' 
jnen  polfefs  humble  hearts  and  willing  minds,  that  they  do 
as  the  Bereans  did — fearch  the  fcriptures  daily,  that  they 
may  know  the  things  which  are  true 

'1  he  time  is  not  far  off,  in  which  common  ChriHiians  wiu 
read  for  themfelves,.  think  for  themfelves,  and  judge  for 
themfelves,  th>it  they  may  know  and  do  the  mind  and  will 
of  God.  They  ought,  all  of  them,  to  do  thus  now.  l"he 
writer  aiks  no  man  to  believe  a  word  which  he  writes,  any 
farther  than  the  reader  can  difcover  that  truth  is  in  it. 

It  is  well  worthy  of  the  reader's  obfervation,  that  every 
writer,  who  undei  Piaads  his  fubjr<fl  and  has  truth  for  his  ob- 
ject, may  be  eafily  underflood  by  tiie  reader  ;  but  thofe  who 
will  not  come  to  the  light,  leil  their  evil  deeds  faouid  be' 
reproved,  ufually  confound  themfelvev  and  their  re.idr-rs 
too.  Truth  fears  not  the  light ;.  but  eiror^  like  the  glow- 
worm, fliines  only  in  the  dark. 

.To  every  one  who  underftands  the  firft  principles  of  trie 
prefent  controveriy,  the  following  is  a  felf-evident  propoii- 
tion  ; — Either  Mr.  Vv^orcefter  and  his  brethren,  or  my  bretli- 
raiiuid  myielf^  believe  aad  prafliie  in  oj^poiklon  to  the  v^cfd 


1 2  Letters  on  Rev,  S,  Worcejler*s 

of  God  ;  for  God's  word  does  not  fupport  both  fides  of  a 
conrradidion. 

The  Baptiils,  and  thofe  who  in  our  land  call  themfelves 
P.isdobiiptiits,  believe  and  pradlife,  as  to  r.heir  diftinguilhing 
tenets,  in  direct  oppoiition  to  each  other.  The  Bapiifts 
believe  chat  nothing  is  gofpel  baptifm,  but  immerfion  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  Thole  who  call  themfelves 
Pasdohaptifts,  believe  that  an^t  and  every  application  of 
water  m  the  name  ci"  the  Father,  occ.  is  gofpel  baptifm. 
As  they  both  believe,  fo  they  both  praiflife. — The  Baptiils 
believe,  that  none  but  fuch  as  receive  the  word  gladly,  are 
qualilied  fuhje(fl:s  for  gofpel  baptifm.  Thole  who  call 
themfelves  Pasdobaptifts,  beheve,  that  if  all  parents  were 
wife  and  faithful,  all  perfons  would  be  baptized  in  infancy  ; 
and,  of  confequence,  all  ought  to  be  baptized  in  unbelief, 
or  before  they  can  receive  the  wor:i  gladly. 

Thus  oppofite  are  theie  two  claifes  of  men.  Both  can- 
not be  right  :  both  cannot,  in  tiiefe  things,  agree  Vv'ith  the 
word  of  eternal  truth.  It  cannot  be  true,  that  immerfiou 
of  the  whole  body  in  water  is  eilential  to  gofpel  baptiim  ; 
and,  at  the  fame  tim.e,  that  any  and  every  other  application 
of  water  may  be  gofpel  baptiim  Nor  can  it  be  true,  that 
none  are  the  quaiiiied  fubjefts  of  gofpel  bapnifm.  but  fuch  as 
recei>rej  the  word  gladly  ;  and  ye:,  that  all  ought  to  be 
baptized,  before  they  know  one  word  from  another. 
.  Before  we  proceed  to  lay  open  Mr.  vVorceiler's  miftakes, 
nconUilencies,  and  ahfurjities,  the  author  of  theie  pages 
begs  leave  to  notify  his  readers,  that  he  hath  not  feleded 
Mr.  vVorcefter's  performance,  as  the  one  to  be  pariicularly 
expofed,  becaufe  it  is  materially  different  frorr  what  many 
others  upon  the  fame  fubje»5l  have  written,  but  becauie  he 
hath  taken  his  ground  decidedly,  and  hath  laboured  to  fup- 
pori  his  caufe  more  than  mofl  have  done. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has,  generally  fpeaking,  built  his\theory 
upon  the  principles,  and  fuj)ported  it  by  the  argun.ents, 
upon  which  his  caufe  muil  Itand  or  fall  U  is  hence  obvi- 
ou?i.  that,  provided  his  theor)'  or  fenr-ment  cann'.'t  bj  iup- 
poited  by  the  principles  and  arguivcn.s  whuh  lie  hath 
brougiit  forward,  not  his  Sermon-  Qnly  hut  all  the  books 
which  his  brethren  have  written  in  jupport  of  the  lame 
theory,  niuii  ail(>  fall  with  them. 

It  may  be  aifo  noted,  that  my  princ-'pal  obje<51:  is  not  to 
expof-  the  aniichri.iian  theory  and  practice  of  Mr.  Wr>rcef- 
ter  and  his  brethren,  but  tc  i't  trr.th  to  rubHc  view  \s 
trutii  is  the  belt  wecqion  by  whicli  to  dellroy  error,  hence 


Two  DifcourfeSy  Isfc.  13 

as  truth  is  brought  forw.ird,  his  errors  will  be  ruined. 
Should  I  on  Ibme  particulars  be  prolix,  the  importance  of 
the  fubjecl  muft  be  rajr  apology  to  the  public. 

As  Mr.  Worcel^er  has,  profeiTedly,  built  his  Sermons,  m 
oppofiticn  to  the  Baptiils,  on  a  part  of  Paul's  epiille  to  th? 
Galatians,  it  is  expedient  that  we  pay  particular  attentioiv 
to  this  epiftle. 

This  epiftle  was  manifeflly  written  againd  the  very  error 
which  Mr.  Worceiter  would  eiVablifh  by  it.  It  is  true,  he 
has  refined  a  little  upon  Judaifm,  and  left  out  the  more 
unpopular  parts  of  that  yoke  of  bondage  ;  but  he  eanieltly 
retains  that  part  which  binds  to  the  performance  of  the 
■whole  :  *'  for,"  fays  Paul,  "  I  teitify  to  every  man  that  w 
circumcifed,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  Law." 
Mr.  Worceiter  ailerts,  that  baptifm  hath  taken  the  place 
ei  circumcifion,  and  means  the  fame  thing.  The  feal,  he 
informs  «-,  is  changed,  but  the  thing  me'A  \s  fuhJarUiaUy  the 
fame  :*  hence  Mr.  Worcefier  holds  fuhjlanUaUy  to  circun^- 
cifion,  and  is  therefore  debtor  to  dt:)  the  whole  law.  The 
change  of  a  feal  from  red  to  luhiie  alters  not  the  nature  of 
an  inilrument,  nor  does  it  le/Ten  its  obligation  or  binding 
force  :  hence,  juft  fo  far  as  Mr.  Worceiler  is  conlifter.t 
with  his  own  theory,  he  is  the  very  perfon,  or  his  theory  is 
what  the  Holy  Ghoft  direded  Paul  to  conde.TQn,  as  being 
an  anticliriftian  error,  among  the  Galatians. 

That  the  reader  may  die  more  fully  underfland  this 
matter,  and  to  make  it  the  more  eafy  to  expofe  and  refut-e 
Mr.  Worcefler's  Judaizing  principle,  we  fhail  here  fet 
down  fo  much  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Galatians  as  will  bring 
the  error  of  their  antichriuian  teachers  to  view,  and  alio 
PauPs  argument  againrt  them. 

Chap.  i.  ver.  i,  2.  **  Paul,  an  apoflle,  (not  of  men,  nei- 
ther by  man,  but  by  Jefus  Chrill,  and  God  the  Father^ 
who  raifed  him  from  the  deaJ,)  and  all  the  brethren  which 
are  with  me,  unto  the  churches  of  Galatia.  Ver.  6,  7. 
I  marvel  that  ye  are  fo  foon  rtTri<ii>sd  from,  htm  that  called  you 
into  the  grace  of  Chrift  unto  another  gofpfl :  which  is  not 
another  ;  but  there  be  fome  that  trcutle  yyuy  and  would 
pervert  the  go/pel  of  Chr'ijl.^^ 

Chap,  ii  ver.  3,  4,  5.  "  But  neither  Titus,  who  was  with 
me,  being  a  Greek,  was  compelled  to  he  circumcijed :  and  lliat 
becaufe  oi  falfe  hrezhnn  unawares  brought  in,  who  can^e  in 
privily  to  fpy   out  our  Fiberty  which  we  have  in  Chiill  Jefus, 

*  Sccliit  itrn-.o^.s,  pge  S^^  56,  57,  &c. 


14  Letters  bh  Rev.   S  Wo?re/}er's 

that  thev  might  bring  us  into  bcrndage  :  to  whom  we  gavt- 
place  by  liibjedlion,  ns,  tiji  for  an  oour,  that  the  truth  of  the 
g'^'pcl  mii^^hi:  cr.ntinue  \s\*i\  you.  Ver.  ii — 14  But  when 
Peter  was  come  to  Antioch,  /  ivithftood  him  to  the  face,  be- 
caafe  he  luas  t'j  le  blamed.  For  before  that  certain  -"ame- 
from  James,  he  Jid  eat  with  the  Gentiles:  bu:.  when  '"hey 
were  come,  he  withdrew,  and  icparated  himieif,  tearing 
them  which  were  rf  the  circumctfon.  And  the  other  jfe<ivs 
d'tjpmbled  likeivife  ivith  him  ;  infomuch  that  Barnabas  alfo 
was  carried  away  with  their  d'Jjlmulaiion,  But  when  T  faw 
x\\aX.  they 'ivaihed  XiOX.  uprightly,  according  to  the  truih  of 
the  go/pel,  I  faid  unto  Peter  before  them  all,  If  thou^  being  a 
Jeiu,  live  ft  after  the  manner  of  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the 
Je'-jus^  why  compeVjjl  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the 
Jcnvs  ?  Ver.  16.  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  juftihed  by 
the  u^rks  of  the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jefus  Chriil,  even 
we  have  believed  in  Jefus  Chrift,  ihat  we  might  be  jujiji-d 
by  th^  faith  fjf  Chrif}^  and  not  by  the  lucrks  of  the  law":  for 
by  the  ^works  f  t^e  laiv  ihall  no  rieih  be  juiiitied  Ver.  2  i. 
I  do  not  fruflrate  the  grace  of  God  :  for  if  righteoufnefs 
come  by  the  lanv,  then  Chrljl  is  dead  in  vain.'' 

Chap.  iii. — '^  O  foo/Jh  G alatlans. r^vho  hath  beiL^itched  jou, 
that  ye  Ihould  not  obey  tiie  truth,  before  whofe  eyes  Jefiis 
Chrift  hath  been  evidently  fet  forth,  crucified  among  you  ? 
This  only  would  I  learn  of  you,  Received  ye  the  Spirit 
by  the  luorks  rf  the  lai:.^,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  P  Are 
ye  fo  foriiilh  ?  having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  made 

'perfect  by  the  ^.fh  P  Have  ye  faffered  fo  many  things  in 
vain?  If  it  be  yet  in  vain.  He,  therefore,  that  miniiier- 
eth  to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  m.iracles  among  you, 
doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  laiu,   or  by  the  hearing   of 

faith  ?  Even  as  Abrah  im  believed  God,  and  it  was  account- 
ed to  him  for  rigkteoufnfs.  Knov*^  ye,  therefore,  that  they 
tvhich  are  o{ faith,  the  fame  are  the  children  of  -"jhraham. 
And  the  fcripture,  forefeeing  that  God  would  juftify  the 
heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  tlie  goipel  unto 
Abraham,  faying,  In  ihee  flail  all  nations  be  llepd.  So  then, 
they  which  be  o{ faith  are  blcfpd  with  faithful  Abraham. 
For  as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law  are  under  the 
curfe :  for  it  is  written,  Curfed  is  every  one  that  continu- 
eth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  ot  the 
law  to  do  them.  ^Bat  that  no  man  is  juftilieJ  by  the  law 
in  the  light  of  God,  it  is  evident :  for,  VhtjuJI  fliall  live 
by  fiith.  And  die  laiu  is  not  of  faith  :  but,  The  man  thai 
do<?th  them  fhalMive  in  them.     Chriil  hath  redeemed  u-s 


Two  DifcGurfcs^  Iffc.  15 

fVom  the  curfe  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curfe  for  us  ;  for 
it  is  written,  Curfed  is  every  one  that  hangeLh  on  a  tree  : 
That  the  hlcjfing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles 
through  Jeftis  Chrift  ;  that  we  might  rccdve  the  J>rom!je  of 
the  Sj?int  thrsugh  faith.  Breihren,  1  fpcak  after  the  man- 
ner of  men  ;  Though  it  be  but  a  man'ls  covenant,  yet  if  it 
be  confirmed,'  no  mun  diraramlleth,  or  addeth  thereto. 
Now,  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  were  the  promifes  made. 
Yi^  faith  noty  And  to  feeds ^  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one^  And 
to  ihy  feed,  which  is  Chri/i.  And  this  1  fay,  that  the  cov- 
enant that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Chriil,  the  law, 
which  wasybwr  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  difan- 
nuh  that  it  ihould  make  the  promile  of  none  effe^.  For 
if  the  mheritajice  be  of  the  law,  It  is  no  more  oi promife  :  but 
God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promife.  Wherefore  then 
ferveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added  becauie  of  tranfgreffions, 
till  the  feed  ihould  come^  to  whom  t!ie  pr^nufe  wa'^  m.ade  ■; 
and  it  was  ordained  by  angels  in  the  hand  of  a  Mediator. 
Now  a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of  one  ;  but  God  is  one. 
Is  the  law^  then  agalnft  xhe  promifs  of  God  I  God  forbid  : 
lor  if  there  had  been  a  law  given  w'hich  could  have  given 
life,  verily  righteoufnefs  fliould  have  been  by  the  law. 
But  the  fcripture  halh  concluded  all  under  fm,  that  the 
promife  hj  faith  of  Jifus  Chr'tfl  might  he  given  to  them  that 
believe.  But  before  faith  came  we  were  kept  under  the 
law,  fbut  up  unto  the  faith  w^hich  ihould  afterwards  be  re- 
vealed. Wherefore  the  lanv  was  our  fchooJmajhr  to  bring 
us  unto  ChriJ},  that  we  might  he  jufijji.d  hy  faith.  But  after 
lh2il  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  fchoolmqjier.  For 
ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Chrjl  Jfus.  For 
us  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptl-z-sd  into  Chrifl  have/w/  e« 
Chrfl.  There  is  neither  JVw  n(.r  Greek,  -there  is  neither 
bond  HOT  free,  there  is  neither  male  wor  female  :  ior  ye  are  all 
one  in  Chrill  Jelus.  And  if  ye  be  ChrjjVs,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
Lam's  fed,  and  heirs  according  to  ihe  promije.'"  . 

Chap.  iv.  ver.  9. — "  But  now,  after  that  ye  have  i  no  tan 
G'd,  or  rather  are  kneiun  of  God,  hoio  turn  ye  again  to  the 
iveak  and  beggarly  elements,  whereunto  ye  deiire  again  to  be 
in  bondage  ?  Ver.  16,  17.  Am  I,  therefore,  become  your 
enem.y,  becaufe  i  tell  you  the  truth?  1  hey  z,Ltdr.ufly  affe(5t 
you,  but  not  well ;  yea,  they  would  exclude  you,  thut  ye 
might  afFe(5t  them.  Ver.  21  —  26.  Teli  me,  ye  that  defire 
to  be  under  ihe  latv,  do  ye  nor  hear  the  law  ?  For  it  is 
wriuen,  that  Abriiham  had  two  Tons,  the  rne  by  a  bond- 
;>  iid,  the  other  i>v  a  free  wCr.Jir.i.      F-ut  lie  who  wa^  of  the 


i6  Letters  on  Reverend  S.  WorceJier*s 

bond-woman  was  born  after  tlie  ^£/2)  ;  but  ke  oixhe  free 
^oman  Avas  by  prom'tfe.  Which  things  are  an  "allegory  : 
for  thefe  are  the  tivo  covenants  ;  the  on^^Vom  the  mount  Sinai, 
which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar-  For  this 
Agar  is  mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  anfwereth  to  Jerufa- 
lem  which  noiv  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  children.  But 
Jerufalem  which  is  above,  is  free,  which  is  the  mother  of 
us  all.  Ver.  28 — 31.  Now  lue,  brethren^  as  Ifaac  was,  are 
the  children  oi promife.  But  as  then,  he  that  was  bom  after 
the  flefh,  perfecuted  him  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit, 
even  fo  it  is  now.  Neverthelefs,  <zvhat  faith  the  fcripture  ? 
C  fi  out  the  bond  zuoman  and  her  fen  :  for  the  fon  of  the  bond- 
woman  Ihill  not  be  heir  with  the  fon  of  xhe  free  'woman. 
So  tnen,  br  thren,  we  are  not  children  of  the  bond-'woman^ 
but  of  the/'^-f." 

Chap.  V  Ver.  1,2,3,4:  "  Stand  faft,  therefore,  in  the 
liberty  wherewith  Chri ft  Irath  made  us  free,  and  be  not 
entangled  again  \  th  ihe  yoke  of  bondage.  Behold,  I  Paul 
fay  unto  you,  T.'.at  if  ye  be  circumcifed  Chrffifhal I  profit  you 
nothing.  For  I  teitify  ag  lin  to  every  man  tnat  is  circum- 
cifed,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  ivhoie  la'w.  Chrifl  is  be- 
come of  no  effect  unto  you,  vvhofoever  of  you  are  juftitied 
by  the  law  ;  ye  are  fallen  from  grace,  v.  6.  For  in  Je- 
fus  Chrift  neither  circumctjion  aiiaileth  any  things  nor  uncir- 
cumcfion  ;  but  faith  wiiicli  worketh  by  love.  v.  9.  A  lit- 
tle leaven  le:iveneth  tiie  whole  lump.  v.  11.  And  I, 
brethren,  if  yet  I  preach  circumcifon^  why  do  I  yet  fuffer  ^<rr- 
fecution  ?  then  is  the  offence  of  the  crofs  ceafed.'* 

Chap.  vi.  Ver.  12,  13,  i4>  15,  16.  "  y?/ wd-nv  as  defire  to 
make  2.  fair  fhenv  in  che  flefh,  they  conflrain  you  to  be  cir- 
tumcfed ;  only  lejl  they  ^\\o\x\d  fuffer perfcution  for  the  crofs  of 
Chrtfl.  For  neither  rhey  themlelves,  who  are  circumrifcdy 
heep  fhe  latu  ;  brrt  dftre  to  have  you  circumcifed^  that  they 
may  glory  in  your  fleili.  But  God  forbid  that  I  fhrjuld 
glor^y  fave  in-:  he  crofs  of  our  Lord  J -fus  ChriJU  by  whom  the 
world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I  unto  the  world.  For  in 
Chrill  Jeihs  neither  circumciftcn  availeth  any  thing,  nor  un-^ 
circumrifm,  but  a  new  creature*  And  as  many  as  walk 
according  to  this  rulcy  peace  be  on  them^  and  mercy,  and  up- 
on the  Ifrael  of  God.''* 

I  have  made  this  l^^ng  quotation,  that  the  reader  may 
have,  directly  before  him,  all  which  Paul  wrote  in  his 
epillle  to  the  Galatiaus,  relative  to  the  fubje^t  which  is 
now  agltatin"  the  pubhc  mind.  The  la  ft  '/erle  of  the  third 
chapter,  Mr.  Worcefter  took  for  his  text,  on  which  to  builj 


Two  Difcourfes^  l^c,  17 

his  Judaizing  theory.  But  neither  in  his  text,  nor  In  anv 
other  part  of  this  epiftle,  is  there  a  word  in  favour  of  his 
legal  plan.  But  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  of  it  was  writ- 
ten, purpofely  to  deflroy  fuch  a  principle,  which  began  to 
work  among  Chriftians,  even  in  the  apofties'  days. 

In  this  epitlle,  Paul  meiiiions  two,  covenants,  one  con- 
tained in  the  following,  and  fimilar  words  ;  "  In  thee  (hall 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blefled."  This  covenant 
was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift  to  Abraham,  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before  the  other,  the  Sinai  covenant, 
was  given  ;  alfo  this  covenant  of  proniife  was  made  known 
to  Abraham,  m.ore  than  iiuenty  years  before  the  irJliiuUon 
of  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  was  afterwards  in- 
corporated into  the  Sinai  covenant.  Neither  of  thefe  cov- 
enants hath  any  thing  to  do  with  the  covenant  of  circum- 
•cifion,  fave  the  coven-ant  of  circumcifion  was  a  token  of 
the  former,  and  is  included  in  the  latter,  and  binds  the 
fubjedls  of  it  to  perform  all  the  legal  duties  which  that  en- 
joins. Hence  the  apoftle  fcarcely  gives  fo  much  as  a  hint, 
through  th-e  whole  epiitle,  of  the  inftitution  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcifion.  Where  he  mentions  the  covenant  itfelf, 
it  is,  to,  difluade  his  brethren  of  Galatia  from  the  pradlice 
of  it,  and  to  urge  them  to  be  wholly  feparate  from  it. 
Greatly  the  reverfe  is  it  with  Mr.  W.  The  covenant  of 
circumcifion  is  the  theme  of  his  difcourfe,  and  the  bafis  on 
which  his  principle  refts  ;  from  the  beginning,  to  the  end 
of  his  Sermons.  At  the  fame  time,  he  fully  manifefts 
throughor.t  that  he  has  no  corred  idea  of  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  ;  for  he  continually  confounds  the  covenant 
of  promife  with  the  covenant  oi  circumcifion.  Indeed,  he 
mud  thus  confound  covenants,  or  his  theory  would  have 
no  plaufibility. 

But  I  haften  to  unfold  Mr.  Worcefter's  confuied  and 
abfurd  ideas,  that  tlie  public  may  be  aftonifhed  at  the 
blindnefs  and  confufion  of  many  of  their  leaders. 

The  firft  confufed  and  abfurd  ijea  of  Mr,  Worceder's, 
which  I  (hail  now  mention,  is  contamed  in  his  expofition 
of  his  text.  We  will  fet  down  his  text,  and  then  his  expo- 
fition. 

His  text  is,*  *'  And  \i  ye  be  Chrt/t'sy  then  are  ye  Abra= 
ham's  feed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promife.**  His  ex- 
pofition follows,  « If  ye  be  Chrift's,  then  are  ye  brought 

*  Page  8. 


1 8  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Worcejier's 

into  a  covenant  relation  to  Abraham,  are  jufllHed  in  the 
fame  manner  in  which  he  was,  and  are  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  hlejjings  which  were  contained  in  the  promijh 
made  to  him  and  his  feed/ 

That  the  confufion  and  abfurdity  of  this  expofition  may 
appear,  nothing  more  is  neceffary  than  to  mention  fome  of 
the  privileges  and  bleffings  which  were  contained  in  the 
promifes  to  Abraham  and  his  feed.  Some  of  thefe  privi- 
leges and  bleffings  of  Abraham's  are,  that  in  him  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  fhould  be  bleifed  ;  that  he  fliould  be  a 
father  of  many  nations  ;  that  kings  fhould  come  out  of 
him ;  that  the  land  of  Canaan  .fliould  be  their  poiTeflion  ; 
and  that  Chrift  ihould  be  of  them,  as  concerning  the  fiefli, 

The  reader  can  judge  for  himfelf,  3s  to  the  confiftency, 
•or  abfurdity  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  expofition.  If  every  be- 
liever in  Chrift  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  blejjings 
which  were  contained  in  the  promifes  made  to  Abraham 
and  his  feed,  then  is  he  correcl,  otherwife  abfurd.  If  ev- 
ery believer  be  an  Abraham,  and  if  the  children  of  every 
believer  be  the  children  of  Abraham,  &c.  &c.  then  is  Mr. 
Worcefter's  notion  juft,  otherwife  it  is  confufed  and  incon- 
fnlent  with  common  fenfe. 

The  next  thing  which  I  ihall  mention,  is  one  of  his  falfe 
ftatements.  It  is  in  the  nextfentence  but  one,  to  the  expo- 
fition  of  his  text. 

*  It  is,'  fays  he,  *  particularly  to  be  remarhed,  that  witli.a 
view  to  convince  his  Galatian  brethren,  of  their  unhappy 
error,  in  refpecft  to  juftification,  he  afcends  to  the  memorable 
period  of  the  inftitution  of  the  church  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, takes  the  covenant  then  made  with  Abraham  and  his 
feed,  and  traces  it  down  in  the  tranfmiffion  of  its  privileges 
and  bleffings  to  the  Gentile  church.' 

This  propofition  is,  indeed,  as  Mr,  Worceller  fays,  to  be 
particularly  remarked^  for  nothing  is  more  falfe  and  delufory, 
than  is  what  he  here  aflerts.  It  is  not  only  far  from  truth, 
but  it  is  abfurd. 

It  is  far  from  truth :  for  Paul  does  not  afcend  to  the 
memorahle  period  of  the  injlitution  of  the  church  in  the  family 
Q,i  Abraham^  but  to  the /avW  in  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham this  promifcy  "  In  thee  fliall  all  nations  be  blefTed." 
This  promife  Paul  repeatedly  brings  to  view,  in  the  chapter  in 
which  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  text ;  and  this  promiie  was  made 

^  Gen.  xii.  and  xvii.     Rom.  \%.  5. 


Two  DifcGurfes^  ^c*  "        1 9 

TTiOrexhzn  twenty  yenrsheiore  the  irjiitution  oi  the  church  in 
Abraham* i  family.  Befides,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  might  have 
no  excufe  for  miilaking  the  matter,  Paul  exprefsly  tell  us, 
that  the  covenant,  of  which  he  is  writing  to  the  Galatians 
and  to  us,  and  by  which  he  difTuaded  them,  and  by  which 
he  dilTuades  us,  from  adhering  to  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  yean  before  the  law  ; 
^vhereas  the  memorable  period  in  winch  a  church  was  inili- 
tuted  in  Abraham's  family,  was  not  four  hundred  and  ten 
years.     Let  any  who  are  able  compare  the  dates. 

Further,  if  a  church  were  inftituted  in  Abraham's  fam- 
ily, it  was  by  the  covenant  of  circumcifion.  For,  previous 
to  the  giving  of  that  covenant,  there  is  no  more  appearance 
of  a  church  in  his  family  than  in  Job's  or  Lot's.  To  fup-, 
pofe  that  Paul  referred  the  Galatians  to  this  covenant,  to- 
reprove  them  for  their  error,  in  feeking  juftification  by  the 
law,  is  doubly  abfurd  ;  for  their  very  error  confifted  in 
adhering  to  this  covenant.  Alfo,  he  told  them,  tl:at,  upon 
their  being  circumcifed,  they  v/ere  debtors  to  do  the  v/hole 
law. 

The  propofition  now  under  confideration  is  not  only 
falfe  and  abfurd,  but  delufory.  By  it  Mr.  Worcefter  would 
teach  his  own  people  and  the  public  much  as  the  Judaizing 
teachers  taught  the  Galatians,  t:iat  except  they^  were  cir- 
cumcifed and  kept  the  law  of  Mofes,  they  could  not  be 
faved.  He  does  not  ufe  the  fame  v/ords  with  thefe  de- 
ceivers, but  the  leading  ideas  through  his  Sermons  appear 
to  go  upon  the  fame  principle ;  and  in  page  52,  his  words 
come  fo  nigh,  that  probably  the  perverters  of  the  Galatian 
church  would  not  be  offended  at  them,  rlis  words  are, 
*  It  is  not,  indeed,  certain,  that  if  you  be  unbelieving  and 
difobedient,  your  children  will  be  finally  loft )  for  God 
may,  as  often  in  hi^  fovereign  mercy  he  does,  go  out  ef  the 
limits  of  the  church,  and  beftow  his  grace  on  thofe  who  are 
aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Ifrael,  and  Grangers  to 
the  covenant  of  promife.  Bat  if,  in  this  cafe,  he  does 
beftow  grace  upon  your  children,  it  will  not  be  in  purfu- 
ance  of  any  covenant  engagement  to  you.' 

This  language  harmonized  but  too  v/ell  with  thofe  troub- 
krs  of  the  church,  of  whom  Paul  fays,  "  /  -would  they  ivere 
cut  ojfr 

Mr.  Worcefter's  proportion  next  to  that  which  we  have 
been  confidering  (page  8)  is,  *  The  apoftle's  whole  argu- 
ment  proceeds  upon  the  plain  fcripture  ground,  that  the 
covenant  which  vvas  made  with-  Abraham,  and  which  con- 


20  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  iVorce/?er*s 

ftltuted  the  church  in  his  family,  was  kill  in  force,  and  was 
never  to  be  abrogated  ;  that  the  Gentile  churches  were 
embraced  in  that  covenant,  as  making  one  with  the  Jewifh 
church  ;  and  that,  by  virtue  of  that  covenant,  belrevers  of 
every  age  and  nation  were  to  be  confidered  as  the  children 
cf  Abraham,  inheriting.,  by  diinne  right y  all  the  privileges  and 
bleJftngS:  comprifed  in  the  promifcs  made  to  him  and  his  feed/ 

This  propofition  contains  artother  of  Mr.  Worcefter's 
falfe  ftatements,  delufory  fophifms,  and  abfurd  ideas.  Thrs 
propofition  is  full  of  falfe  ftatements  and  erroneous  affer^ 
lions. 

In  the  Jirfi  place,  he  confounds  the  covenant  which  was 
confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  with  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  and  gives  his  readers  to  underftand  that  they  are 
kGih  one :  whereas  the  Bible  tells  us  that  the  latter  is  bvLt 
the  token  of  the  former,  Gen.  xvii. 

In  the  Tuxt  place,  he  tells  us,  '  That  the  apoftle's  whole 
argument  proceeds  upon  the  plain  fcripture  ground,  that 
the  covenant  which  vfas  raade  with  Abraham,  and  which 
corjlituted  the  church  in  his  family,  was  (till  in  force,  and  was 
never  to  be  ab-rogated.' 

Ihe  apoftle,  inftead  of  going,  as  Mr.  WorceQer  fays, 
upon  the  fcripture  ground,  that  the  covenant  which  was 
made  with  Abraham,  and.  which  conftituted  the  church  in 
his  family;*  was  ftill  in  force,  and  never  to  be  abrogated, 
does  not,  in  the  whole  chapter,  fo  much  as  once  mention 
that  covenant  by  which  a  vifible  church  was  conftituted  in 
Abraham's  family,  unlefs  it  be  to  reprove  the  foclijh  Gala- 
tians,  who  were  giving  heed  to  Judaizing  teachers,  who 
>yere  preaching  among  them  this  covenant  of  circumcifion. 

Paul  goes,  indeed,  upon  the  plain  fcripture  ground,  and 
•oponthis  plain  fcripture  ground  too,  that  the  gofpel  church 
•was  aoad  is  built  upon  the  promife  made  to  Abraham  long 
before  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  ever  mentioned,*- 
and  upon  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in 
Chrift  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law,  and 
more  than  twenty  before  there  was  any  vifible  church 
formed  in  Abraham's  family,  or  the  covenant  given  upon 
which  it  was  conftituted.  What  Mr.  Worcefter  here  men- 
tions of  the  covenant  and  conflitution  of  a  church  in  Abra- 
ham's family,  is  manifeftly  a  mere  delufory  fophifm  or 
deception ;  for  the  apoftle  does  not  fo  much  as  once  inti- 
mate any  fuch  thing. 

•  Sec  Gal.  iii.  8,  t  7.  and  Gcr.  ■xii.  3- 


3.  In  the  propofitlon  now  under  confideration,  Mr, 
Worcefter  tells  us,  that  tlie  Gentile  churches  \tere  em- 
braced in  that  covenant,  as  making  one  with  the  Jewid; 
church.  Here  he  comes  out,  and  fhows  himlelf  to  be  one 
of  the  Judaizing  teachers  -,  but  the  apoftle  fays  not  a  word  ■ 
of  any  fuch  thing, 

4.  Says  Mr.  Worcefler,  <  And  by  virtue  of  that  cove- 
nant, believers  of  every  age  and  nation  were  to  be  confid- 

ered  as  the  children  of  Abraham.' ^("piy-     The  apoftle 

no  vrhere  fays,  that  ever>any  one  believer,  of  any  age  or 
nation,  was  to  be  confidered  as  a  child  of  Abraham  by 
viriue  of  t/jai  covenant  by  which  a  church  v/as  conftituted 
in  his  family.  The  apoftle  fays,  "  If  yg  be  Chrijl's,  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  feed  ;"  no/,  if  ye  be  circumcifed,  or  be 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 

The  abfurdity  of  the  idea,  in  the  clofe  of  the  propofition^ 
*  of  believers  inheriting,  by  divine  rig/?i,  ail  the  privileges  and 
hlejfings  comprifed  in  the  promife,  made  to  Abraham  and 
his  feed,"  has  been  already  expofed. 

Thus  falfe,  delulbry,  and  abfurd  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  main 
propofition,  which  leads  to  and  introduces  his  no  lefs  falfe, 
delufory,  and  abfurd  dcclrine. 

It  may  be  pleafmg  and  profitable  to  the  reader,  to  have 
here  ftated  a  few  general  truths,  which  relate  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  and  may  ferve  to  explain  it. 

1.  It  was  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  promife^ 
which  was  revealed,  and  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in 
Chrift,  that  Abraham  vras  made  a  faithful  faint. 

2.  It  was  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  or 
by  Abraham's  compliance  with  it,  that  he  and  his  family 
v/ere  conftituted  a  vifible  church. 

3.  It  is  by  virtue  of  the  fame  covenant  of  grace  and 
promife,  by  which  Abraham  was  made  a  faint,  that  the 
nations  of  the  earth  are  blefled  in  or  by  him,  and  many  are 
made  believers  in  Chrift. 

4.  It  is  by  virtue  of  obedience  to  the  ordinances  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  and  efpecially  to  the  firft,  viz.  baptifmy  that  believers 
are  conftituted  into  vifible  gofpel  churches. 

The  reader  underftanding  the  above  plain  truths,  we 
will  now  proceed  to  confider  the  dcSrinej  wliich  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter  would  have  us  believe  to  be  contained  in  his  text. 

*  The  text,  then,  (fays  he)  thus  contemplated,  in  its  con» 
nexion,  prefents  for  our  confideration  this  great  and  inter- 
efting  doarincf  viz.  In  God^s  covenant  of  promije  with  Abraham^ 
E  2 


22  Letter)  on  Rev,  5.  Worcejer'^s 

pro<viJion  ivas  made  for  the  continuance  of  the  church  formed  hy 
it  ;  and  thus  for  the  tranfm'ijfton  of  the  privileges  and  bie/Jings 
contained  In  it,  from  generation  to  ge?:eration,  down  to  the  clofe 
of  time* 

That  the  public  may  at  once  fee  that  there  is  no  coa- 
nexion  between  Mr.  Worceiler's  text  and  the  doctrine  which 
he  fays  it  prefentSj  I  will  here  fet  down  the  text,  and  the 
three  verfes  next  preceding* 

Ver.  26.  *'  For  ye  are  ail  the  children  of  God  by  faith  In 
Jefus  Chrijl.'^  Ver.  27.  "For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptised  into  Chrlft  have  put  on  Chrifl"  Ver.  28- 
*'  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor 
free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female;  for  ye  are  all  one'in 
Chrift  Jefus.'*  Ver.  29.  "And  \i  yeh%  Chrifi's^  then  2.X& 
ye  Abraham^ s  feed,  and  heirs  according  to  the promift,^* 

In  verfe  26,  Paul  tells  the  Galatian  Chriftians,  that  they 
were  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  In  Ckrifi  Jefus  ;  neJ 
by  circumcijlon^  or  by  the  works  of  the  laiv.  In  verfe  27, 
he  gives  the  reafon  ;  "  For  (fays  he)  as  many  of  you  a5 
have  been  baptized  into  Chritt  have  put  on  Chriji."  This 
infants  could  not  do.  In  verfe  28,  he  informs  us,  that  in 
the  gofpel  church  both  Jew  and  Greek,  both  bond  and 
free,  both  male  and  female,  are  all  one  in  Chrift  Jefus. 
In  the  laft  verfe,  Paul  fays,  "  And  if  ye  be  Chriji^s,  then  are 
ye  Abraham^ s  feed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promife.^'  Ac- 
cording to  the  promife  of  circumcifion  ?  Yes,  if  Mr.  Worcef- 
ler's  notions  are  correcT:.  But  where  does  he  find  fuch  a 
promife  ?  in  his  text  ?  or  in  the  chapter  which  contains  his 
text  ?  or  in  the  epiftle  which  contains  the  chapter  ?  or  m 
any  other  infpired  epiftle  I  No  where  ;  and  the  public 
ought  to  know  it.  The  public  ought  to  be  apprifed  of 
this  :  and  every  one  v;ho  underftands  the  matter,  ought  to 
inform  his  brother,  that  neither  Paul,  nor  any  other  infpired 
penman,  hath  ever  told,  us,  that  the  vifible  church  in  Abra- 
ham's family  was  formed  by  the  covenant  which  Paul 
mentions  repeatedly  in  the  third  chapter  of  his  epiftle  to 
the  Galatians.  Paul,  by  mentioning  in  verfe  8,  the  cove- 
nant of  which  he  was  fpeaking,  and  by  fixing  in  verfe  17, 
the  date  of  ir,  or  the  time  of  its  being  manifefted  or  con- 
firmed to  Abraham,  explicitly,  or  with  great  plainnefs,  tells 
us  that  he  meant  no  fuch  thing. 

A  few  confequences  will  now  be  ftated. 

I.  Mr.  Worcefter  appears  to  have  mifunderftood  his 
text  wholly,  not  a  fmgle  idea  being  found  in  it  as  he  fup- 
jpcfedb 


Tzvo  Difcourfesy  <sfc,  aj 

2.  Mr.  Worcellier  appears  to  have  wholly  mirunderftood 
the  covenant  of  \\  hich  Paul  Ipeaks,  in  the  chapter  whence 
he  took  his  text ;  this  coveiuint  being  conipictely  dillinfi 
from  the  covenant  which  gave  vifibility  to  the  church  in 
Abraham's  family. 

3.  Mr.  Worcefter  is  manifoilly  far  from  kncii'tngy  that 
the  thing,  and  the  only  tljing,  which  conitituted  Abraiiam's 
family  into  a  viiible  churcn,  was  his  circumcifing,  at  God's 
command,  all  the  males  in  his  houfe.  Had  Mr.  Wv:»rcei^er 
have  known  ihis,  he  would  have  difniiiled  his  Sermons 
before  he  dehvered  them,  and  not  io  darkened  couniel  by 
•words  without  knowledge. 

4.  It  is  man;fefi,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  is  fall  in  fentiment 
with  thofe  who  troubled  the  Galatlan  churches  ;  and  thai 
he  hath  perverted  his  text  and  the  intention  of  the  apoftle, 
that  he  might  defend  the  very  herefy  which  Paul  laboured 
to  deftroy.  For  all  which  thofe  Judaizing  teachers  en- 
deavoured, was  to  briag  the  gofpel  church  to  the  ftandard 
of  the  Jewifn^  and  what  Mr.  Worcefter  enaeavours  is,  for 
I'ubilance,  the  lame  thing.* 

The  public,  and  every  reader,  is  defired  to  hear  me 
patiently  ;  for,  if  the  Lord  v/ill,  I  have  many  tilings  yet  to 
fay,  that  I  may,  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jefus, 
deliver  many  from  the  Judaizing  tenets  of  Mr.  Worcefter 
and  his  brethren. 

in  the  mean  time,  may  Jefus  poilefs  my  heart,  and  the 
jubiic  my  beil  wifhes  and  zealous  labour  for  their  good- 
1  am,  &:c. 


We  appeal  to  iJ:e  Bible ^  to  Jiubborn  fads^  and  to 
common  fenfe^ 


L  E  T  T  E  R     m. 

MEN,  BRETHREN,  AND   FATHERS, 

In  my  la  ft  I  fet  before  you  Mr.  Worcefter's 
text,  dodrine,  and  feveral  things  conne(51ed  with  them  ; 
and  mentioned  the  covenant  of  which   Paul  fpake,  and 

♦  Sec  page  8,  9,  aud  everi  other  page  ia  ki$  Seraaoiw. 


2  4  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier^s 

fnewed  how  Mr.  Worcefter  midook  the  whole  matter.  la 
this  you  may  expect  to  find  tlie  inanner  in  which  he  handles 
his  fubjed,  and  fomeof  his  arguments,  expoled. 

His  general  method  of  difccurfe  was, 

* -I.  To  Ihow  that  the  covenant  which  was  made  with 
Abraham,  and  by  which  the  church  was  formed  in  his 
family,  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  or  to  continue 
throughout  all  generations;   and, 

*  II.  To  lliow  more  particularly  what  provifion  vra? 
made  in  that  covenant  for  the  continuance  of-  the  church 
formed  by  it,  and  for  the  tranfmiffion  of  the  blelCngs  con> 
tained  in  it.' 

His  next  words  are,  *  It  cannot  be  neceffary,  in  a  la- 
boured manner,  to  prove,  that  by  'Cv.^-cQxstnant  made  with 
Abraham,  a  church  was  formed  in  his  family.'  Here  he 
takes  for  granted,  or  as  not  necelTary  to  be  in  a  laboured 
manner  proved,  the  very  JuhjeS  which,  of  all  others,  it 
became  him  to  prove  thoroughly,  if  he  could.  Had  he 
but  proved,  or  will  he  now  prove,  that  the  cenfirm.ation  of 
that  covenant,  of  which  Paul  fpeaks,  Gah  iii.  8,  17,  or 
that  the  being  aSualty  interejlcd  in  that  covenant  was  what 
conftituted  Abraham  and  his  famiily  a  vifible  church,  then 
would  we  grant  him  all  he  alks.  But  ftubborn  fads  will 
forever  keep  it  beyond  his  power  to  prove  any  fuch  thing. 
For,  as  has  been  before  obferved,  the  promife  that  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  fhouM  be  ble/Ted  in  Abraham,  and 
this  covenant  alfo  was  confirmed,  and  yet  there  was  no 
vifible  church  In  his  family  for  more  than  twenty  years 
after  i  nor  was  it  conftituted  till  the  covenant  of  circum» 
cifion  was  given,  and  in  full  practice.  Thefe  are  (lubborn 
fads,  which  Mn  Worcefter  cannot  rem^ove,  till  he  blot  out 
the  page  of  revelation. — Thus  the  firft  principle,  and  the 
whole  foundation,  on  which  he  built  his  difcourfe*,  and  his 
oppofition  againft  the  gcfpel  church,  being  removed,  w^e 
might  leave  the  fuperibuctore  to  fall  of  itfelf,  were  it  not 
that  he  has  many  difmgenuous  remarks  and  unfounded  ' 
afTei  tions  fcattered  through  the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  done  as  is  ufual  for  the  ingenioufly 
erroneous  to  do  ;  in  the  ilrft  place,  takt  for  granted  th^  Jirji 
principles  which  were  neceffary  to  be  proved,  yet  incapable 
of  proof,  and  then  proceed  with  confiderable  plaufibility. 

Says  he,  (page  10)  *  Several  arguments  in  fupport  of 
the  propofition,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
and  his  feed,  and  confequently  the  church  formed  by  it, 
did  not  ceafe  oq  the  introdudion  ol"  the  gofpel  difpenfation, 


Tvjo  Difcourfes^  ^<r.  25 

but  were  intended  to  continue  throughout  all  generations* 
I  will  now,  my  brethren,  fubmit  to  your  confideration.' 

It  is  fufficient  juft  to  remark,  that  the  co'vcnant  which 
^ave  vifible  e.xiftence  to  the  church  in  Abraham's  family 
did  ceafe,  and  was  never  intended  to  continue  in  the  vilible 
church  of  God,  but  till  the  feed  fhould  come  to  whom  the 
promile  was  made.  Paul  is  my  firil:  witnefs.  Gal.  v.  5. 
**  If  ye  be  circumcifcd  Chrift  (liall  profit  you  nothing." 
Paul  is  my  fecond  witnefs,  i  Cor.  vii.  18.  "Is  any  called 
in  uncircumciilon  ?  let  him  not  becomt  circumcifed.^^  This 
covenant  of  circumcifion  was  the  only  covenant  which  gave 
vifibility  to  a  church  in  Abraham's  fiimily.  Paul  told  all 
believing  Gentiles,  and  all  Jews,  who  were  not  circumcifed, 
that  they  ought  net  to  keep  this  covenant.  It  ought, 
therefore,  to  have  ceafed  ;  and  it  did  generally,  fave  where 
Paul's  oppofers  kept  it  alive.  My  third  witnefs  is,  the  apof- 
tlesj  elders,  and  the  whole  church  at  Jerafalem,  who  fent 
to  the  Gentiles,  that  thty  need  not  obferve  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cic^nc'ijion.   See  Acts  xv. 

Mr.  Worcefter's  arguments  are  now  to  be  confidered. 

His  jirjl  is,  *  By  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  he 
was  conltituted  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe.* 

Anjiver.  No  perfcn,  who  underliands  the  controverfy 
between  thofe  who  hold  to  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  and 
thofe  who  plead  for  the  continuance  of  the  Jewifh,  will 
deny  the  truth  of  the  propofition,  which  contains  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter's  hrft  argument ;  but  every  perfon  who  has  any  con- 
fiderable  knowledge  of  the  fubje<ft,  will  deny  that  the  argu- 
ment hath  any  connexion  with  the  thing  to  be  proved  by 
it.  Let  Mr.  Worcefter  only  prove,  that  Abraham  was,  by 
the  covenant  of  circumcilicn,  conftituted  the  father  cf  all 
them  that  believe,  and  we  will  grant  his  argument  to  pof- 
fefs  weight ;  but  till  he  does,  his  argument  is  defervedly 
confidered  v;ithout  force. 

But,  fays  he,  page  12,  *  If  we  be  members  of  a  different 
church,  formed  by  a  different  covenant  from  that  of  Abra- 
ham, what  relation  have  we  to  Abraham  ?  in  what  refpect 
are  we  his  children  ?  how  is  it  that  v/e  are  bleifed  with 
himr 

Aufnuer.  Not  by  being  in  a  vifible  church  (late,  either 
Jewifn  or  Chriilian  ;  but  by  being  the  children  of  God  by 
faith  in  Chrift  Jefus,  GaL  iii.  25,  29,  and  according  to  the 
promife,  Gen.  xii.  3.  xxii.  18.  Behdes,  Abraham  poffeffed 
faith,  and  received  the  promifes,  not  whilft  in  a  church 
(late  i  not  tn  c'lrcumc'ifion^   but  iti  uncircumclfon,     Juft,  fo,  if 


iG  Letters  on  Rev.  S,  Woreefler^s 

ever  we  be  bleiTed  with  faithful  Abraham,  it  (hould  be,- 
not  while  we  be  in  a  church  Rate,  but  before  we  be  bap- 
tized ;  then  we  may  receive  baptifm  as  Abraham  did  cir- 
cumcifion,  as  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  or  (Tncerity  of  our 
faith.  Nor  did  Abraham,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  (page  12) 
would  have  us  believe,  receive  the  promifes,  while  being 
the  covenant  father  of  a  vifible  church  ;  for  when  he  re- 
ceived the  promifes  there  was  no  vifible  church. 

His  fecond  argument  is,  *  God's  coirenant  of  promtfc  with: 
Abraham  comprifed  all  the  bleiUngs  and  privileges  ever- 
promifed  to  believers  and  to  the  church.* 

ouppofe  we  grant  all  this  too,  what  hath  it  to  do  with 
the  bufniefs  on  hand  ?  how  does  it  fhow  that  the  gofpel 
church  is  but  the  Jewifh  church  in  continuation  ?  for  the 
covenant  of  promife  was  confirmed  of  God  inChrift,  and 
made  manifeft  to  Abraham,  before  the  Jewifn  church  ex- 
ifleJ  ;  and  the  bleiTmgs  and  privileges  promifed  to  believers? 
may  be  enjoyed  by  the  gofpel  churdi  after  the  Jewiih  is- 
aboliihed. 

^Says  Mr.  "Worcefter,  page  14,  *I  will  eftablifti  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  feed  after  thee,  fays 
the  Lord  to  Abraham,  for  an  everlafting  covenant,  to  be  a- 
God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  and  in  thee, 
and  in  thy  feed  (hall  all  the  nations  of-the  earth  be  bleiTed.* 
All  this  is  true  ;  but  what,  in  particular,  hath  this  to  do 
with  the  conftituting  of  Abraham's  family  into  a  vifible 
church?  Mr.  Worcefter  fubjoms,  'Thefe  promifes,  my 
brethren,  are  of  v aft  comprehenfion.'  Certainly  they  are. 
They,  by  implication,  comprehend  all  the  bleftings  and 
privileges  which  have  been  enjoyed  by  the  Jewiih  church  ; 
and  all  which  have  been,  or  ihali  be,  by  the  gofpel  church. 
Yet  there  is  not  fo  much  as  the  leaft  hint,  in  any  one  of 
them,  that  they  comprehend  vrhat-he  brought  them  to 
prove — that  the  Jewifh  and  gofpel  churches  are  one  and 
the  fame  church. 

Again,  fays  he,  on  the  fame  page,  *  To  Abraham  and 
his  feed,  fays  the  apoftie,  were  the  promifes  m.ade.  To 
A.braham  and  his  feed,  comprehending  Meffiah,  and  all 
true  believers  as  included  in  him,  were  made  the  promifes, 
which  comprife  all  the  bleiTmgs  ever  to  be  conferred  upon 
the  cliurch  and  people  of  God.'  If  we  grant  all  this,  ftill 
it  hath  nothing  to  do  with  the  point  in  queftion,  fave  it  be 
in  his  application  of  it,  to  deceive  the  credulousj  and  aug- 
ment thedarkuefs  of  the  blind,. 


Two  BifcourfeSy  ^c.  27 

Mr.  Wercefter  adds,  *  Was  this  covenaat  then,  fo  vaftly- 
comprehenfive  with  refpedt  to  its  bleffings,  ever  to  be  abro= 
gated  ?'     We  reply,   Surely  not. 

He  ailcs  agaui,  '  Was.  the  church  which  was  formed  by 
it,  and  fo  richly  endued,  ever  to  be  aboliilied  ?'  Our  anfwer 
is,  Firft,  the  vifible  church  in  Abraham's  family  was  never 
formed  by  this  covenant ;  and  fecondly,  that  the  Abra= 
harnic  church  was  never  fo  richly  endued,  nor  was  ever 
any  other  church,  as  Mr,  Worcefter  fuppofes.  The  prom- 
ifes  were  not  made  to  Abraham  and  the  church,  Jewifn  or 
Chriftian;,  but  to  him  and  his  feedy  which  is  Chrift. 

He  again  afks,  *  Was  there  to  be  another  covenant,  com° 
prehending  more  and  greater  bleffings,  another  churchy 
more  largely  and  richly  endued  r'     Our  reply  is.   No,  no. 

But  I  am  tired  of  fuch  queftions,  which  are  wholly  from 
the  point.  Mr.  Wcrcefter  appears  to  have  forgotten  his 
fubject,  or  to  have  no  argument  which  is  applicable. 
Should  he  tell  us  that  the  Englifh  are  white,  and  therefore 
the  Africans  are  of  the  fame  complexion,  his  pofition  and 
argument  would  be  of  equal  aptitude  and  force  with  what 
he  hath  as  yet  faid. 

His  note,  pages  17,  18,  fhould  have  a  moment's  atten- 
tion, for  by  it,  it  is  manifeR  that  he  is  wholly  unacquainted 
with  the  fenti-ments  of  his  opponents,  as  to  the  covenant  of 
promnfe,  mentioned  Gen.  xii.  3.  xxii.  18.  Gal.  v.  8,  17. 
and  in  many  other  places.  *  As  nothing  (fays  he)  could 
be  more  unfounded,  fo  nothing  could  be  more  derogative 
of  the  honour  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  than  the  fentiment, 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  feed  was 
only  a  temporal  covenant,  and  included  only  temporal 
bleffings.'  Had  he  been  but  fmally  informed  as  to  the 
Baptift  fentiment,  with  relation  to  the  above  mentioned 
covenant  of  promife,  he  could  never  have  honeftly  fuggeft- 
ed,  that  they  hold  the  fentimicnt  which  he  in  his  note  im- 
plicitly charges  to  their  account 

Mr.  Worcefter's  ^hird  argument  Is  now  to  be  confidered, 
and  it  is  in  thefe  words — «  The  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
•ham  and  his  feed,  is  the  covenant  of  which,  in  the  New 
Teftam.ent,  Chrift  is  faid  to  be  the  Mediator,  and  which  is 
defignated  as  the  covenant  to  be  eftablifhed  with  the  churcJi 
in  the  days  of  the  gofpel.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I 
will  make  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael,  After  thofe  days,  faith 
the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write 
them  in  their  hearts  :  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they 
ihall  be  my  people.'     Very  well ;  but  this  is  not  the  cove- 


28  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/Ier's 

nant  of  clrcumcifion,  by  which  the  Jewlfh  church  was  con- 
Ikituted,  or  by  which  Abraham's  family  was  formed  into  a 
viiible  church.  This  is  the  new  and  better  covenant,  which 
hath  better  promifes  than  had  the  covenant  of  circurncifion. 
We  ftill  fee  that  Mr.  Worcefter's  argument  makes  nothing 
to  his  purpofe. 

Page  19,  he  tells  us,  *  The  Sinai  covenant,  the  ^iofaic 
law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances,  as  it  was 
added  but  for  temporary  purpofes,  has  waxed  old,  and  is 
■vanilhed  away.'  Then  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  gone 
with  it  :  for,  fays  Paul,"  I  teftify  to  every  man  that  is  cir- 
cunicifed,  that  h-e  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  ivhole  la<w,^^  Gal.  v.  3. 

What  Mr.  Worcei-ter  alferts  in  pages  19  and  20,  ought 
to  arreft  the  attention  of  the  public  ;  for  in  thefe  pages  he 
l^ath,  to  carry  his  Judaizing  fcheme,  dire<511y  contradi(Sed 
the  word  of  the  Lord  by  both  Jeremiah  and  Paul.  His 
words  are,  *■  As  the  Lord  faid  to  Abraham,,  /  "Mill  eJlahVtJh 
my  covenant  hdnveen  me  and  thee ^  and  thy  feed  after  thee^ — to  he 
a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  fo  he  faid  to  Ifrael 
in  Egypt y  I  iv'dl  take  you  to  me  tor  a  people,  and  /  tuill  ke  to 
you  a  God ;  and  fo  he  faid  concerning  the  houfe  of  Ifrael 
and  the  houfe  of  Judah  in  the  days  of  the  gofpel,  I  will  put 
my  law  in  their  iniuard parts,  and  lor'tte  it  in  their  hearts  ; 
and  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  fhall  be  my  people. 
The  covenant,  or  the  great  and  leading  promife  of  the  covenant, 
as  expreffed  In  thefe  feveral  injlanccs,  is  the  fame. — On  the 
Jlightefl  infpedion,  it  is  plain  that  the  cofenakt,  mentioned  in  the 
feveral  injlances  now  before  us,  is  one  and  the  same  ; — and  ■ 
in  each  of  the  inftances,  the  great  promife  is,  To  be  a  God  to 
the  church,  and  to  the  seed  of  the  church.^ 

Here  Mr>  Worcefter  hath  dared  to  contradi<5l  the  word 
of  the  Lord  in  dired  terms  ;  and  to  this  he  hath  been  com- 
pelled, that  he  might  fupport  his  Judaizing  fcheme,  his 
antichriftian  error. 

The  word  of  the  Lord  is,  Jer.  xxxi.  3i»  32,  33,  "  Behold, 
the  days  come,  faith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  cov- 
enant with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  and  with  the  houfe  of  Judah  ; 
NOT  according  to  the  covenant  that  1  made  with  their  fathers, 
in  the  day  that  I  took  them,  by  the  hand,  to  bring  them 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  (which  my  covenant  they  brake, 
although  I  was  an  hufband  unto  them,  faith  the  Lord  ;) 
but  this  fliall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  houfe 
of  Ifrael,  After  thofe  days,  faith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my 
law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts  ;  and 
will  be  their  God,  and  they  (hall  be  my  people.'*     Here 


Two  Difcourfes^  Iffc.  29 

Mr.  Worceder  afTerts,  that  God's  covenant  with  the  houfe 
of  liVael  in  Egypt ^  and  in  the  days  of  the  go/pel,  are  one 
and  ihe  same.  God  faith,  that  the  one  is  vot  according  to 
the  oth&r. 

The  word  of  the  Lord  b}'  Paul,  Heb.  viii.  8,  9,  10.  is, 
•'  Behold,  the  days  come  (faith  the  Lord)  when  I  will 
make  a  nciv  covenant  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael,  and  with  the 
houfe  of  Judah  :  kot  according  to  the  covenant  that  [  made 
aulth  their  fathers,  in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand 
to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  &c. 

How  long  lliall  the  religious  world  be  deceived,  by  men 
who  make  a  bufmefs  of  wrefting,  perverting,  and  contra' 
di(5ling  the  word  of  the  Lord  ! 

Mr.  Worcefter  not  only  wrefts,  perverts,  and  contradids 
the  fcriptures,  but  he  alio  adds  to  them,  as  we  fnall  have 
repeated  occalion  to  fliow.  One  inftance  we  have  in  the 
words  juft  quoted  from  page  20  ;  '  And  (fays  he)  in  each 
of  the  inllances,  the  great  promife  is,  To  be  a  God  to  the 
church,  and  to  the  feed  of  the  church* — '  To  he  a  God  to  the  feed 
of  the  church.''  This  is  clear  addition,  for  which  he  hath  rea- 
son to  exped  God  will  reprove  him.  For  in  this  inftance 
he  not  only  adds  to  God's  word,  but  manifeftly  contradicts 
it.  For,  fays  Paul,  Gal.  iii.  16.  "To  Abraham  and  his 
feed  were  the  promifes  made.  He  faith  not.  And  to  feds, 
as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one.  And  to  thy  feed,  which  is  Chrift.'* 
Befides,  if  the  great  pi:omife  is  to  the  feed  of  the  church, 
what  then  became  of  this  promife,  as  to  &iQ  feed  of  the  church, 
in  Abraham^ s  family  ?  Out  of  perhaps  a  thoufand  members, 
only  the  feed  of  Ifaac  manifeftly  bleffed,  and  but  one  of 
his,  even  Jacob.  Into  what  absurdities  does  Mr.  Worcef- 
ter's  theory  drive  him  ! 

Page  23,  fays  he,  *  So  plain  from  the  fcriptures  it  is, 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  is  continued  under 
the  gcfpel,  and  therefore  that  the  church  formed  by  it  is 
alfo  ftill  continued.'  As  Mr.  Worcefter  fat  out  with  con- 
"  fufed  ideas,  or  without  any  idea,  of  that  covenant  by  which 
a  vifible  church  was  conftituted  in  Abraham's  family,  fo 
he  proceeds  on  in  darknefs.  His  argument  in  plain  Englifh 
is  this — The  covenant  which  God  made  wim  Abraham,  ^o 
be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  feed,  is  continued  under  the 
gofpel ;  therefore  the  church  formed  by  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  is  ftill  continued.  Here  his  antecedent  and 
confequeRt  have  no  connexion  :  the  one  is  true,  the  other 
Me. 

C 


30  Letters  on  Rev.  5.  IVorce/ier^s 

Mr.  Worcefter's  note,  page  23,  is  not  pleafmg,  for  it  is 
not  true.  The  principal  idea  in  it  is,  *  From  this  Iburce 
(the  wifcriptural  blending  of  the  Abrahamic  and  Sinai  cove- 
nants together)  fprang  the  error  of  the  legal  Jews,  in  for- 
mer ages ;  and  from  this  fam.e  fource  has  fprung  the  error 
of  the  cleniers  of  the  Ahrahamtc  covenant  and  church,  or  the 
Antipsedobaptifts,  in  modern  times.' 

Anj'wcr.  A  more  unjuft  ftatement,  or  a  more  illiberal 
fuggeftion,  I  prefume  was  never  made  by  the  man  of  fm. 
But  before  we  fnall  have  done  with  Mr.  Worcefter,  we 
fhall  find  he  has  many  fim.ilar  ones.  As  to  the  legal  Jews, 
"we  wnll  pafs  them  ;  but  as  to  the  Antipaedobaptifts,  we  afk. 
Do  they,  in  modem  tim.es,  or  did  they  ever  at  any  time, 
deny  the  Abraham.ic  covenant  ?  Our  anfwer  is,  No  :  nor  is 
Mr.  Worcefter  able  to  m.ention  a  time  in  which  they  denied 
it.  They  deny  his  perverted  ufe  of  it.  They  deny  that 
the  covenant  which  was  manifeded  to  Abraham  in  Ur,  or 
Haran,  and  which  was  contirmed  of  God  in  Chrift  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law,  was  that  covenant 
by  which  a  vifible  church  was  formed  in  Abraham's  family. 
But  they  have  never  denied,  nor  have  they  the  leaft  inclina- 
tion to  deny,  that  covenant,  which  prcmiied  to  Abraham, 
that  in  him  and  in  his  feed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
Ihould  be  bleiTed  :  nay,  they  believe  in  this  covenant,  and 
hope  to  fhare  in  the  bieffings  contained  in  it. 

How  long  fnall  thofe  v^'ho  lead  God's  people,  caufe  them 
to  err  from  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord  ! 

I  am,  &c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible ^  to  Jlubborn  fadsy  and  ttr 
common  fcnfe. 


LETTER      IV. 

MEN>  B8.LTHREN,  AND  FATHERS, 

Y  OU  will,  no  doubt,  join  witli  me  in  fenti- 
ment,  that  Mr.  Worceiter's  arguments  ought  to  be  critically 
examined  ;  and  that  when  a  ruler  in  Ifracl  comes  fc  rward, 
with  fet  purpofe  to  impofe  his  ef rors  on  the  public,  his 


Two  Difcourfes^  ^r.  31 

arguments  fliould  be  fully  inveftigated  and  thoroughly  re- 
futed. I  muil,  therefore,  call  your  attention  to  his  next 
argument,  which  is, — 

Fourth.  *  The  church  under  the  gofpel  is  uniformly  in 
the  fcriptures  reprefented  as  being  the  fame  church,  or  a 
continuation  of  the  fame  church,  which  was  formed  in  the 
family  of  Abraham.* 

The  propofitions  on  which  he  formed  his  preceding  ar- 
guments we  have  cheerfully  granted  to  be  true,  and  fhowed 
that  they  have  no  relation  with  his  fubjedl,  which  he  would 
eftablifli  by  them  ;  but  this  argument,  or  the  proportion 
on  v/hich  it  is  built,  has  no  truth  in  it.  The  fcriptures  give 
no  fach  reprefentntion,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  here  tells  us  that 
they  uniformly  do  ;  at  leaft,  I  find  no  fuch  place.  I  find 
no  place  where  the  fcriptures  give  fo  much  as  a  diftant  hint 
that  the  church  under  the  gofpel  is  but  a  continuation  of 
the  Jewifh  church.  The  fcriptures  explicitly  teftify  juft 
the  contrary  from  what  Mr.  Worcefter  afferts. — But  we 
will  hear  him  illuftrate  and  enforce  his  argument  a  little. 

Says  he,  page  24,  *  It  would  be  very  remarkable  indeed, 
if  this  was  not  the  cafe.  It  would  be  very  remarkable 
indeed,  if,  in  the  fcriptures,  Abraham  and  his  feed  were 
reprefented  as  making  two  or  more  diftindt  and  quite  dif- 
ferent families  ;  or  if  the  children  of  Abraham  under  the 
gofpel,  who  are  only  heirs  according  to  the  promife  made 
to  him,  were  reprefented  as  compofmg  a  church,  entirely 
diftinct  and  different  from  that  which  was  founded  in  the 
family  of  their  father  :  but  fuch  a  reprefentation  is,  in  the 
fcriptures,  no  where  to  be  found.' 

Thus  Mr.  Worcefter  comes  cut  in  full,  that  the  gofpel 
church  is  but  a  continuation  of  the  church  formed  in  Abra- 
ham's family.  We  might  have  left  him  to  poffefs  his 
opinion  in  quietnefs,  had  he  not  have  attempted  to  per- 
iuade  the  public  that  the  fcriptures  fay  the  fame  thing  ; 
but  as  the  matter  is,  we  wifh  the  public,  and  Mr.  Wcrcefter 
alfo,  to  heai  a  few  words,  which  the  fcriptures  fay  on  this 
fubje61. 

Paul,  fpeaking  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  of  the 
church  as  made  up  of  both,  fays,  Eph.  ii.  34,  15.  *•  For 
he  (that  is,  Chrilt)  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one^ 
and  hath  Irohen  dcwn  the  middle  luall  of  partition  between 
us  ;  having  ahd'Jhtd  in  his  flefh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of 
commandments  contained,  in  ordinances;  for  to  make  in 
himfelf  of  tnvain  one  nfjf  manV  Here,  if  I  underftand  the 
apoftle  corre(5tly,  and  the  pubHc  will  judge,  Paul  dirc(5tly 


32  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Wcrceficr's 

contradiifls  what  Mr.  Worceller  afHrms  the  fcriptures  unt- 
fornily  leprefent.  Mr.  YVorcefter  mys  the  goipel  church  is 
the  old  one  continued,  the  apoftle  favs  it  is  a  netv  one  :  the 
public  will  judge  whether  Mr.  Worcefter  or  Paul  is  to  be 
credited. 

Daniel,  ch.  ii.  44.  wjiilft  interpreting  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream,  fpeaking  of  the  goipel  church  or  kingdom,  fays,. 
"  And  in  the  days  of  thife  kings  fijall  the  Gcd  of  heaven  Jet  vp 
a  h'lngdanu,  which  ihall  never  be  deftroyed  :  and  the  kingdomi 
fhali  not  be  left  to  oth.cr  pet^ple,  but  it  iTall  break  in  pieces 
and  confume  all  thefe  kingdoms,  and  it  fiiall  ftand  forever." 
Here  the  prophet  Daniel  fays,  "  The  God  of  }>ccven  fi all  Jet 
vp  a  kingdom,''^  within  a  certain  limited  period,  between  the 
exiftence  of  the  Babylonifh  kingdom  and  the  deftrudtion  of 
the  Roman.  Mr.  Worceiter  fays,  the  God  of  heaven  fnaii 
continue,  enlighten,  and  enlarge  the  old  je<v.nfh  kingdom^  or 
church.  The  public  will  believe  w'hom  they  pleafe,  Mr. 
WorcePier,  or  the  prophet  Daniel. 

Jefus  Chrift  faid  to  the  Jews,  Matt.  iv.  17.  "  Repent  : 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (the  gofpel  chu7-ck)  is  at  hand." 
Mr.  Worcefter  fays,-  The  old  JevjlfJo  church,  or  kingdom, 
was  about  to  be  revived- 

Again,  fays  the  Lord,  John  iii.  3.  "Except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  fee  the  kingdom  of  God  :"  that  is, 
none  but  fuch  as  are  born  again,  are  qualified  fabjeds  for 
the  kingdom  of  God,  or  can  be  interefted  in  its  bleffings. 
Mr.  Worcefter,  \i  I  do  not  miftake  him,  fays.  If  the  good 
man  of  the  houfe  believe,  all  who  are  in  his  houfe  may  fee 
the  kingdom  of  God,  or  do  •  by  divine  right  inherit  all  the 
hlejfngs  and  privileges  of  the  gofpel  church  .^  this  kingdom  of  Gcd.* 
The  public  wnll  ftill  judge  whom  to  believe. 

The  fcriptures  fay,  that  the  converted  Jews  were,  in  the 
apoftles'  days,  added  to  the  gofpel  church  (Adls  iii.)  Mr. 
Worcefter  iays,  the  Jewifli  and  gofpel  churches  are  one  i 
and  of  confequence..  the  converted  Jews  could  not  be  added 
to  the  gofpel  church,  for  they  belonged  to  it  from  their 
childhood  or  infancy. 

The  apoftle  to  the  Hebrews,  ch.  xiii.  10.  fays,  *«  V»^e  have 
an  altar,  wheieof  they  have  no  right  to  cat  ivho  fervc  the 
tabernacle  :'*  that  is,  thofe  who  abide  with  the  JewiJJ:  c hurt J>t 
have  no  right  to  gofpel  ordinances.  Mr.  Worcefter  fays,  the 
Chriftian  altar  and  the  Jevvifti  tahernacle  are  fubftantially 
the  fame,  or  the  Jewift)  and  gofpel  churches  are  both  one  i 
and  therefore,  fuch  as  fcrve  the  one,  have  a  right  to  eat  of 
the  other. 


Tivo  Dlfcourfesy  fe^;.  35 

This  is  but  a  fmall  fample  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  difagree- 
nient  with  che  fcriptures  ;  we  ihail  fee  more  foon. 

In  pages  24,  25,  Mr.  Worceiter  gives  us  a  large  quota- 
tion from  the  lixticlh  chapter  of  l^aah.  He  brought  it 
forward  to  prove  that  the  Jewiih  and  gofpel  churches 
are  one  and  the  fame.  He  tells  us,  *  that  the  wholj  chap- 
ter is  in  point,  but  a  part  may  fuffice  as  a  fpecimen.'  Had 
he  given  us  the  whole,  every  reader  might  have  feen  that 
evtry  part  was  out  of  point,  as  to  what  he  would  prove  by- 
it.  The  2 id  verfe  informs  Mr.  Worceiler,  that  this  chapter 
knows  nothing  of  this  Judaizing  fcheme  The  prophet 
addrefles  this  chapter  to  the  gofpel  church  ;  and  in  verfe 
21,  fays  to  her,  *  Thy  people  alfo  fhall  be  all  righteous,'* 
This  was  never  true  of  the  Jewiih  church,  nor  of  any  church 
formed  after  the  model  of  the  Jewifh.  This  promife  was 
never  made  concerning  the  Jewifh  national  church ;  but 
to  Zion,  the  people  of  God,  for  the  comfort  of  the  pious 
fevv,  who  were  waiting  for  the  cr^nfolation  of  the  fpirltual 
Ifiaelites.  This  promife  does  not  belong  to  any  cliurch, 
nor  was  it  ever  fulfilled  to  any,  fave  to  the  gofpel  church, 
to  the  chuich  formed  according  to  the  commandment  and 
pattern  given— of  none  but  bshe'vers.  Thus,  had  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter  quoted  the  whole  chapter,  it  would  not  only  have  been 
totally  from  his  purpofe,  but  it  might  have  been  feen  by 
all  his  readers,  that  the  promifes  in  it  did  not  apply  to  the 
old  Jewiih  church,  nor  to  the  modern  Jewifh  churches,  like 
his  own,  and  all  others  which  are  compofed  of  believing 
parents  and  their  unrighteous  children  ;  but  to  the  church, 
whofe  members  are  baptized  upon  a  profelTion  of  faith,  or 
upon  their  being  manifeftly  all  righteous. 

Mr.  Worcefter's  other  remarks  and  fcripture  paffages, 
under  this  argument,  appear  equally  applicable  with  the 
above  ;  not  one  of  them  having  any  relation  to  the  fubjeft 
which  he  wifhes  to  prove.  When  a  man  fets  oiF  in  a  wron^ 
dire<flion,  he  gains  nothing  by  continuing  his  courfe. 

Mr.    Worcefter's  ffih   argumentative   propofition    is, 

*  The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  is  exprefsly  declared 
to  be  an  everlafting  or  perpetual  covenant ;  a  covenant  to 
continue  to  the  lateft  generations.' 

Reply,  By  covenant,  mufl  be  here  meant,  either — firft, 
Shat  co'venant  which,  by  way  of  eminence,  and  on  account 
of  the  prom.ifes  contained  in  it,  is  called  the  covenant  of 
grace  ;  or,  fecondiy,  the  covenant  of  circumcifion.  If  the 
£rft  be  inteaded,  we  by  no  means  deny  but  it  is  an  ever- 
c  2 


34  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Wcrcejler'* s 

lailing  covenant,  2.nd  never  in  time  nor  in  eternity  lo  be 
forge tten  :  yet  this  covenant  is  not,  as  has  already  been 
fully  iLown,  what  gave  viiibility  to  a  church  in  Abraham's- 
family.  If  the  fecoiid  be  the  one  meant,  then  its  everiaft- 
ing  continuance  is  equal  to  the  everlafting  inhentanc& 
■R-hich  was  given  to  the  feed  of  Abraham  in  the  land  of 
Canaan.  This  covenant  of  circirmciuon  was  commandedj 
and  this  promifed  inheritance  in  the  land  of  Canaan  was 
given,  in  Gen.  xvii.  Bo^h  are  faid  to  be  everlafting,  yet 
in  a  limited  fenfe  :  for  when  the  Romans,  under  Titus  and 
Vefpafian,  deftroyed  the  Jewifh  church  and  nation,  their 
inheritance  was  removed,  and  their  covenant  of  circumcifion 
was  of  no  ufe,  fave  to  continue  them  a  diitin6V  people,  that 
they  might  be  a  reproach,  a  taunt,  and  a  by-word,  among 
ail  nations  ;  and  alfo  to  m.ake  it  manifeft  in  future,  that 
God's  predidtions  by  the  prophets  were  of  him.  But  the 
public  is.  defired  to  notice,  that  whatever  'bfhc.  Worceftep 
might  intend  by  the  everlafting  covenant,  that  it  hath  noth- 
ing LO  do  with  the  main  object  which  he  would  eftablifh  by 
it,  namely,  that  the  gofpel  church  and  Jevriih  are  one  and, 
the  fame  church  :  for  that  covenant  by  which  the  Jewiflv 
church  v.'as  conftituted.  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  forma- 
tion of  the  gofpel  church. 

After  Mr.  Worcefter  had  adduced  as  niuny  teits  as  he 
pleafed,  which  were  foreign  from  his  point,  he  fays,  page 
51,  *  Such,  my  hearers,  is  a  compendious  view  of  the  fcrip- 
ture  proofs,  that  the  covenant  which  Vv^as  made  with  Abra= 
ham,  and  by  which  the  church  was  conftituted  in  his  fam: 
ily,  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  or  to  continue  throughout 
all  generations.  I  fay,  a  compendious  view  ;  for  in  order 
to  give  an  ample  and  complete  view,  we  fhould  be  obliged 
to  prefent  the  whole  fcriptures  in  their  connexioUi  The 
whole  fcriptures,  in  their  connexion  teftify,  that  Abraham 
is,  under  God,  the  father  of  the  church  ;  that  to  him  and 
his  feed  all  the  promifes  were  made  ;  that  the  church,  built 
©n  the  foundation  oi  the  apoflles  and  prophets,  is  one  ;  that 
the  covenant  confirmed  in  Chrift,  with  Abraham  and  his 
feed,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  was  never  to  be  dif- 
annuhed.* 

Here  Mr.  Worceiter  does,  as  he  has  done  in  all  his  pre- 
•  ceding  arguments,  mix  truth  and  error  together.  We  all 
grant,  and  fully  believe,  that  the  covenant  which  was  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
before  the  law>  was  never  to  be  difannuUcd.     But  we  all 


Tvjo  DifcGurfes.  Xffc,  55 

deny,  and  fully  difbelieve,  that  the  church  in  Abraham's 
family  was  formed  by  the  giving  or  by  the  obferving  of 
tJiat  covenant  v  and  Paul,  as  we  have  already  obferved, 
ihows  us,  and  declares  to  ns,  by  giving  us  *he  year  in  which 
that  covenant  was  confirmed,  that  it  was  not.-  At  the  time 
of  the  confirmation  of  this  covenant,  there  was  no  vifibie 
church  in  Abraham's  family,  nor  for  many  years  after. 

Mr.  Worciifter  has,  through  ail  his  arguments,  taken  for 
granted  the  only  thing  which  it  was  nece^ary  to  prove. 
Had  he  only  proved  this  one  thing,  namely,  That  the  cov- 
enant of  promife,  which  was  manifeded  to  Abraham  in 
Ur,  or  Haran,  and  conhrmxed  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  before  the  law,  was  the  covenant  which  confti- 
tuted  his  family  into  a  vifibie  church  ;  and  that  all  believ- 
ers, who  are  interefted  in  this  covenant  in  gofpel  times, 
are,  of  neceJary  confequence,  in  the  vifibie  gofpel  church  5. 
and  that  the  being  interelled  in  this  covenant,  did  in  Abra- 
ham's time,  and  does  in  gofpel  times,  conllitute  the  favoured 
perfons,  and  no  others,  memib^ers  of  the  vifibie  church  ;. 
then  would  w^e  not  have  contended  v.ith  him  againft  the 
onsnefs  and  famenefs  of  tiie  Jewifn  and  gcfpel  churches. 
But  he  has  done  no  fuch  thing  i  nor  does  he  appear  to  have 
done  any  thing  eife,  five  it  be  to  prove  what  no  Baptill 
denies,  and  tlxn  to  take  for  granted  what  neither  faint  nor 
fmner  friould  ever  believe.  H^  proves,  that  the  covenant 
which  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  before  the  law,  was  never  to  be  difannuUed. 
This  we  ail  believe. — He  takes  for  granted,  that  the  jew'ijh 
churchy  which  was  inftituted  upon  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  is  one  and  the  fame  thing  with  the  gofpel  church,  whofe 
mem'oers  are,  as  the  prophet  declared  they  fhouid  be,  all 
righteous.     This  no  perfon  ought  to  believe. 

Had  he  undertaken  to  prove,  that  the  churcli  of  Rome,, 
and  that  the  Proteftant  church,  generally,  are  formed  after 
the  model  of  the  old  Jewi(h  cliurch,  we  Ihould  have  be- 
lieved  the  fad,  whether  his  arguments  were  to  the  point  or 
not;  for  the  fafl  is  intuitively  evident.  But  he  muft  not 
only  pervert,  add  to,  and  dim.inifh  from,  but  he  muft  change 
the  fcripturc,  before  he  can  prove  that  the  Jev.-ifh  church 
cfnd  the  gofpel  church  are  one  and  the  fame, 

Mr.  Worcefter's  arguments,  and  the  manner  in  which  he 
handles  the  word  of  God,  have  repeatedly  brought  to  my 
mind  the  words  of  Jeremiah,  ch.  v.  31.  *'  The  prophets 
prophefy  falfely,  and  the  prlejis  bear  rule  by  their  means  ;  and 
my  peopk  hvs  to  bai'e  it  fa.** 


36  Letters  en  Rev.  S,  Worcejlers 

In  my  next,  we  (Lall  iee  Mr.  Worcefler  altering  and 
-changing  fcripture,  to  bring  it  to  his  purpofe  ;  togetiier 
with  fonae  of  his  coniinaed  inconhilency.  In  the  mean 
time,  1  wifn  to  be 

The  pubhc's,  in  the  fcrvice  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  &c» 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible ^  to  Jliibhorn  fa6ls^  and  to 
common  fcnfe. 


LETTER      V. 

MEH,  BRETHREN,   AND   FATHERS, 

J.N  my  lull  yen  were  promifed,  that  in  this 
you  fhould  fee  feme  cf  Mr.  WorceRer's  altering  and  chang- 
ing the  l"criptm-es,  to  bring  them  to  his  purpofe. — We  have 
already  feen  how  he  confounds,  mingles,  and  mifapplies 
40'venants  i  we  v/ill  now  fee  how  he  alters  the  token  of  the 
covenant  of  promifc,  and  how  he  changes  ^promije  into  pro- 
fojal.  In  ihort,  we  may  fee  how  he  turns  every  way,  to 
carry  his  error  in  oppcfition  to  the  gofpel,  and  to  perfuade 
his  readers  to  believe  his  Judaizing  fcheme. 

The  inflances  which  I  am  about  to  lay  before  you,  may 
ferve  as  famples  cf  his  altering  and  v^Tefting  the  fcriptures, 
to  give  his  errors  a  popular  appearance,  in  the  judgment 
cf  thofe  who  drink  dov/n  error  as  water. 

Page  32,  fpeaking  of  circumcifion,  the  token  of  die  cov- 
enant of  promifc,  and  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  Abra- 
ham's faith,  which  he  had  v/hile  in  uncircumcifion,  Mr. 
V/orcefter  in  the  J:rji  place  calls  it  the  token,  and  then  im- 
mediately adds,  or  feal  of  the  covenant.  Toheriy  or  feaL 
This  changes  the  matter  fo  little  as  to  be  hardly  perceived. 
In  the  next  page  he  tells  us,  that  circumcifion  was  the  token 
and  feal  cf  the  covenant.  Here  he  makes  fome  advance* 
Yet  the  difference  between,  a  token  or  feal,  and  a  token  and 
leal,  is  fo  fmall,  that  he  might  fuppofe  his  readers,  generally, 
would  not  perceive  it. 

After  having  changed  the  word  of  God,  from  token  of 
the  covenant,  to  token  or  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  to  token 
And  Jeali  then  he  drops  the  fcripture  exprcflion  and  takes 


•.he  papiftlciil  fuhftitute,  and  calls  circumcifion  the  outward 
j'eal  ct  ihe  covenant,  the  appoint °d fed  of  the  covenant  ;  and 
by^hirty  times  repeating,  In  diiTerent  places,  the  leal,  the 
'juiivard  Teal,  the  appointed  fecU  of  the  cover. ant,  he  no  doubt 
^lippofed  that  his  hearers  and  readers  would  take  it  for 
granted  that  he  was  proceeding  upon  fcripture  ground  ; 
whereas  this  is  all  a  mere  impofition  upon  the  credulity 
and  prepofiefiion  of  the  public.  The  word  of  G'.^d,  in  n» 
place,  from  Gencds  to  Revelation,  fays  fo  much  as  one 
word  about  circumcition,  as  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant. 

The  next  thing  v\hich  we  may  notice,  'is  his  changing 
promife  into  propofaL 

Says  he,  pages  34.,  35,  *  God's,  prom'tf:fy  then,  or  propfal^ 
to  Abraham,  was  to  be  a  God,  not  only  to  him,  but  alfo 
to  his  ieed  after  him.  The  fame  was  his  promije^  or  pro^ 
pfa!,  to  Ifaac. — God  prcmijedy  ox  prop 0 fed ^  to  Abraham,  to 
be  not  only  his  God,  but  alfo  the  God  of  his  feed  ;  fo  he 
now  promifet,  or  prcpofsy  to  every  believing  parent,  to  be 
not  only  a  God"to  him,  but  alfo  to  his  feed  after  him  :  and 
the  {-dine  promife,  or  prcpofa/f  &c.'  Five  times  in  thefe  two 
pages,  he  lo-ivers  down  the  prormfe  of  God  to  the  level  of  a 
prcpofal. 

We  will  novr  recur  to  fome  more  of  his  inconfiftencies, 
or  attend  a  little  farther  to  his  continued  rnconfiftency, 
vvhich  runs  through  and  is  the  fom  of  his  fnowey  evidence^ 
and  is  at  the  foundation  of  his  fah'e  reafonings,  from  begin- 
ning to  end  cf  his  fu bjecl:. 

Kis  other  general  head  is  now  to  be  conHdered,  which  is, 

<  II.  To  confider  more  particularly  what  prvo'tfon  was 
made  in  the  Alrabam'ic  c.'oenant^  for  the  continuance  of  the- 
church  formed  by  itj  and  the  tranfmiilion  of  the  bieffings 
contained  in  it.' 

Here  Mr.  Worcefter  muA  intend,  by  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  either — ^rlt,  the  co'venant  which  was  confii-med 
of  God  in  Chrirt  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the 
lav/  ;  or,  fecondly,  the  covenant  of  circumxcifionv  If  he 
intend  the  firft,  we  have  only  to  obferve,  what  we  havt? 
Ihown  before,  that  this  covenant  never  gave  vifibility  to 
the  Jev.-ifa  church,  for  it  was  manlfjled  and  confrmed^  and 
yet  there  was  no  vlfible  church  for  years  after :  and  be,- 
fides,  this  covciiant  continues  forever,  though  the  Jewifn 
church  is  no  more.  If  he  intend  the  fecond,  the  covenant 
of  circumicifion,  we  have  jull:  to  obferve,  that  it  hath  fo 
paffed  away,  that,  fo  far  as  ive  keep  It,  and  hope  for  falva- 
•.ion  by  it,  either  for  ourf elves,  cr  for  cur  childreriy  Chrift  fhaii 


38  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejler^s 

protir  us  nothing,  Gal.  v.  2.  Nor  are  we  once  told,  in  the 
Icriptures  of  iruth,  that  any  covenant  is  fubftituted  in  its 
room. 

But  he  intends  the  firft,  and  nothing  is  lefs  to  his  pur- 
pofe  :  for  he  quotes,  page  35,  as  proof  of  his  propofition, 
what  Peter  faid  to  the  Jews,  Acts  iii.  25,  26.  "  Ye  are  the 
children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  our  fathers,  faying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy 
feed  Jhall  all  the  kindreds  of  thi  earth  he  hleffed.  Unto  you 
iir.^,  God,  having  raifed  up  his  Son  Jefus,  fent  him  to  blefs 
you,  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his  iniquities." 
This  quotation  fully  Ihovvs  v/hat  covenant  he  intends  ;  but 
what  hath  this  to  do  with  the  formation  of  a  vifible  church 
in  Abraham's  family  ?  Mr.  Worcefter  might  with  equal 
propriety  have  quoted  the  iirft  chapter  of  Genefis,  or  the 
iaft  of  Revelation,  and  then  hence  told  us,  that  the  church 
in  Abraham's  family  was  founded  by  the  one,  or  by  the 
other,  or  by  both  ;  and  have  concluded,  that  the  Jewifh 
and  Chriftian  churches  are  one  and  the  fame. 

Mr.  Worcefter,  under  his  fecond  general  head,  has  no 
formal  argument,  to  prove  that  provifion  uas  made  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  for  the  continuance  of  the  church 
formed  by  it,  and  the  tranfmiffioa  of  the  bleffings  con- 
tained in  it. 

If  I  apprehend  his  idea  with  cleamefs,  the  fum  of  the 
provifion  which  was  made  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  for 
the  continuance  of  the  church  formed  by  it,  and  the  tranf- 
mifiion  of  the  bleffings  contained  in  it,  is,  according  to  his 
notion  of  the  matter,  contained  in  his  thirty-feventh  and 
thirty-eighth  pages,  and  in  thefollov/ing  words  :  '  For  they 
v»hich  r.re  the  children  01  the  Hefh  (merely)  are  not  the 
children  of  God  ;  but  the  children  of  the  prcmfe^  the  children 
in  refpeB  to  ivhcm  there  is  that  faith  and  fdeltty  vhich  are 
the  ccndii':ons  of  the  pomife^  are  counted  for  the  feed.  From 
this  pafTage  (liiys  he)  it  is,  on  the  one  hand,  plain,  that  the 
proraife  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  feed  after  him, 
had  refpe(^  primarily  to  his  natural  defcendants  ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  plain,  that  merely  their  being 
the  natural  defcendants  rf  Abraham,  did  not  biing  them 
within  the  prcmife.  To  be  children  of  ihe  frctnife,  they  muft. 
be  children  of  frith  ;  children^  of  ivhcm  ihere  is  en  the  part  of 
the  parent  or  parents^  the  faith  of  Abraham  in  the  covenant 
of  God.' 

From  thefe  premlfes,  and  the  fiime  frequently  mentioned 
in  Mr.  Worcelter's  pages,  he  would  have  us  conclude,  with 
him,   that  the  following  inferences  aie  true  : — Firft,   That 


Two  D'lfcourfes^  iffc,  39 

everlafting  fnlvjition  is  promifed  to  children,  on  account  of 
the  faith  of  parent  or  parents.  Secondly,  That  the  children 
Ihould  be  baptized  on  the  faith  of  ihcir  parents.  Thirdly, 
That  all  this  is  corroborative  evidence,  that  the  Jewifh  and 
gofpel  churches  are  one  and  the  fame. 

1  have  feveral  ohjedions  againft  thefe  premifes,  and  alfo 
againrt  the  concluhons  which  Mr.  Worcefter  would  druw 
from  them. 

1.  There  is  no  fuch  promife  made,  that  the  children 
fhail  be  faved  by  or  on  account  of  the  faith  of  their  parents  : 
befides,  God,  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  (ch.  xviii.)  mani- 
feftly  fpeaks  againft  the  exifter.ce  of  any  fuch  promife. 

2.  On  fuppofition  that  fuch  exifted  in  Abraham's  day, 
and  exifts  ftill,  yet  no  perfon  ever  kept  the  covenant  which 
comprifes  fuch  a  promife  ;  at  leaft,  we  have  no  account  of 
any  fuch  perfon.  Even  Abraham  appears  to  have  kept 
not  more  than  one-eighth  of  fuch  a  covenant :  for  he  had, 
at  leaft,  eight  fons,  and  but  cne  of  them  was  a  child  of 
promife, 

3.  Suppofe  fuch  a  covenant  exifts,  and  alfo  fuppofe  all 
godly  parents  obey  this  covenant,  it  does  not  hence  follow 
that  their  children  fhculd  be  baptized,  before  they  are 
manifeftly  made  partakers  of  the  promife. 

For  the  fake  of  Ihowing,  and  ftill  farther  expofing,  the 
abfurdity  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory,  I  will  ftate  a  principle, 
and  then  reaibn  from  it  upon  /jis  principles. 

All  true  Chrijlians  have  the  faith  of  Abraham  in  the  covenant 
of  God. 

From  this  principle  I  reafon  tlius  :— All  children  cf  parents 
who  have  the  faith  oi  Abraham  in  the  covenant  of  God,  will 
be  finally  faved.  All  true  Chrjlians  have  this  faith  :  there- 
fore, the  children  of  all  true  ChrtjUans  will  he  faved.  Again, 
all  who  floal!  be  faved,  are  true  Chrifians  ;  therefore,  the 
children's  chvdren  of  all  true  Chriftians,  and  that  too,  to  the 
latejt  genera: lonj  ftiall  he  faved.  Again,  Abraham  had  faith 
in  the  covenant  of  God,  and  it  was  as  operative  in  the 
father  of  the  faithful  as  in  any  of  his  fons  ;  therefore,  all 
the  Iflimaelites,  and  all  the  Israelites,  and  all  the  infidel 
and  gainfaying  Jews,  and  a'!  the  defcendants  of  the  fons  of 
Keturah,  are  all  Cved,  or  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory  is  abfurd 
or  falie 

Mr.  Worcefter  may  reply,  *  To  be  the  natural  children  of 
Abraham,  does  not  bring  them  within  the  promife.*  Verjr 
well.  Then  the  matter  Itands  thus — To  be  the  children 
of  Abraham  did  not,  in  his  day,  bring  them  within  the 
promife  ;  but  to  be  the  children  of  otu  he/i^ving  parent^  nofv 


40  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  WorceJhr''s 

does.  Hence,  one  of  thefe  two  things  is  true  ;  either,  rfrf?, 
that  the  promife  is  now  different  from  what  it  was  in 
Abraham's  time  ;  or,  fecondly,  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory  is 
falfe.  But  if  tie  promife  be  different  nov/  from  what  it 
•was  in'Abraham's  time,  then  his  theory  is  falfe  ;  for  he 
goes,  profeifedly,  upon  the  fuppofition,  that  it  is  the  fame  : 
and  if  the  promiie  be  the  f  ime  now  that  it  was  in  the  time 
of  Abraham,  Mr.  Wcrcelier's  theory  is  ilill  falfe  ;  for  tlie 
promife  then  was  not  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  according 
to  the  flelh,  but  according  to  the  ele-ition  of  grace.  Rom. 
ix.  6 — 13.  'io  make  the  beft  of  his  theory,  and  of  the 
theory  of  his  brethren,  a  perfon  who  has  eight  fons,  as  had 
Abraham^  muft  have  eight  times  as  much  faith  as  Abraham 
had,  or  they  will  not  be  the  children  oi promife  ;  for  but  one 
of  his  was  fo.  'i'hus  ahfurd  and  contradictory  from  fcrip- 
ture,  fads,  and  common  fenfe,  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory. 
We  have  now  paifed  over  and  examined  his  firft  Sermon, 
which  contains  his  fuhjed  ;  and  the  following  oblervations 
appear  to  aiife  as  natural  dedu(51ions. 

1.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  wholly  mifunderftood  his  text, 
as  mentioned  at  the  clofe  of  Letter  II. 

2.  That  his  doctrine  is  not  contained  in  his  text,  nor 
fuppofted  by  any  of  his  arguments. 

3.  That  his  whole  feries  of  arguments  is  one  continued 
fophiftn,  of  the  firil  magnitude.  From  argument  to  argu- 
ment, he  proved  what  nobody  denies,  and  then  affumed  as 
proved  what  none  but  Judaizing  Chriilians  do  or  ever  did 
believe. 

4.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  muft  produce  better  arguments, 
or  the  eyes  of  the  underftanding  part  of  his  own  denomina- 
tion will  probably  difcover  the  weaknefs  of  their  caufe. 
If  he  have  brought  as  good  arguments  as  there  are,  t® 
prove  that  the  gofpel  church  is  but*  a  continuation  of  the 
old  corrupt  Jewifh  church,  his  caufe  is  truly  defperate,  and 
the  fooner  forfaken  the  better. 

5.  That  he  muft  have  taken  the  wrong  fide  of  the  fub- 
jedl,  Gr  a  perfon  of  his  good  fenfe  would  not  have  laboured 
fo  hard,  and  have  proved  nothing. 

What  we  have  yet  before  us,  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  appllca- 
tion,  which  is  the  moll  offenfive  part  of  his  performance. 
But  I  hope  to  treat  him  with  Chriftian  mildnefs,  M'hilft  I 
fhall  be  under  the  difagreeable  neceflity  of  rebuking  him 
fharply,  that  he  and  others  may  fear,  for  the  future,  to 
come  forward  with  temerity,  againft  the  facred  caufe  of 
truth. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  am,  &c. 


Two  Di/courfesy  ^c.  -4*i 

appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  fiuhhorn  fads,  and  to 
.covimo7i  fenfe. 


LETTER      VIo 

Mil-*:,   BRETHREN,  AND   FATHERS, 

\^'  E  now  come  to  what  Mr.  Worcefter  caHs 
Imprcvement ;  in  which  he  does  as  all,  both  good  and  bad, 
have  done,  ib  far  as  the  traditions  and  prejudices  of  mor- 
tals take  the  lead,  wax  worfe  and  worfe.  Indeed,  it  is 
perfectly  natural  to  expecl,  that  if  a  man  fets  out  but  a 
few  degrees  in  a  wrong  direflion,  he  will,  as  he  travek  on, 
deviate  and  wander  farther  from  the  right  way.  Mr. 
Worcefter's  having  taken  fuch  a  fet  off,  is  the  occafion  of 
his  inconiiftencies  and  abfurdities,  in  vi'hich  we  have  feen 
him.  The  inconfiftencies,  falfe  ftatements,  and  mifrepre- 
fentatioDs,  in  which  we  mud  yet  view  him,  I  charitably 
hope,  originate  from  his  erroneous  fet  off,  rather  than  from 
any  \s  icked  defign,  and  fet  purpofe  to  deceive  and  impofe 
on  the  public,  and  on  the  church  of  the  Lord  Jefus. 

In  his  improvement,  his  Jirji  article  is,  *  We  are  led 
(fays  he)  to  a  grateful  and  devout  contemplation  of  the 
great  defign,  the  gradual  progrefs,  and  the  ultimate  exten- 
lion  and  glory  of  the  church  of  God,  originally  eftablifhed 
in  the  family  of  Abraham.' 

This  article  might  be  fo  explained  as  to  have  a  good 
meaning  ;  but  as  Mr.  Worcefter  explains  it,  it  has  the  fame 
erroneous  fignification  as  has  the  preceding  Sermon.  His 
/Dbjed  llill  is,  to  prove  that  there  is  no  new  marif  or  iody  of 
msrif  in  the  go/j)el  churchy  from  what  compcfed  the  Jewifti 
cimrch  ;  and  that  the  former,  as  well  as  the  latter,  is,  of 
right,  compofed  of  believers  and  unbelievers,  in  dired  con- 
tradiction to  the  prophets,  to  Jefus  Chrift,  and  to  his  apof- 
ties  ;  who  fay,  that  the  gofpel  church  fhould  be,  and  is, 
made  up  of  rightecus  ones,  Q>i  fuch  as  are  taught  of  God,  and  is 
an  holy  nation,  &c. 

In  this  way  alfo  he  excludes  the  myftery,  which  Paul 
fpeaks  of,  as  having  been  hid  in  God  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  and  which  was  not  made  known  unto  the  fens 
.of  irxn,  as   it  is  noi^j  rtveakd  unto  his  holy  apoiUes  and 

■D 


42  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/ler's 

prophets  bv  the  Spirit,  that  the  Gentiles  fhould  be  fellcw 
heirs,  and  of  the  lame  (new  man  or)  body  (with  the  be- 
lieving Jews)  and  partakers  of  his  promlfe  In  Chrl/1  hj  the 
gofpel.  According  to  Mr.  Worcefler,  there  appears  to 
have  been  no  mytlerv  about  the  matter:  nothing  new  took 
place,  with  relation  to  the  church,  when  the  God  of  heaven 
fat  up  his  kingdom  in  the  world,  and  called  his  people  by 
another  name  ;  at  leall,  nothing  new  with  refpect  to  the  ma- 
terials of  which  the  church  was  compofed. 

If  fome  few  Gentiles  were  added  to  it  at  the  firft,  and 
Biore  afterwards,  this  was  nothing  nev,%  If  in  procefs  of 
time  more  Geniiies  than  ever  before,  were  added,  ftill  this 
was  nothing  new  or  myfterious,  any  farther  than  it  is 
myfterious  to  have  an  old  praclice  fomewhat  more  largely 
extended  :  for  it  had  been  cufcomary  in  m.any,  if  not  in  all, 
generations  of  the  Jewifh  church,  to  receive  Gentiles  into  it. 

His  fecund  article,  having  no  particular  connexion  with 
tlie  point  in  debate,  may  be  omitted :  however,  a  nv>te, 
pages  50,  51,  at  the  conclufion  of  his  remarks  on  this  arti- 
cle, may  be  noticed. 

*  Though  the  covenant  (fays  he)  is  never,  on  Gcd's  part, 
eftabliflied  Y.'ith  any  but  true  kelie'versy  yet  all  who  have  taken 
the  vows  upon  them,  o'ught  to  feel  themfelves  Jacredly  hound 
to  f'dlfd  their  engagements.  If  they  have  opened  their  mouths 
unto  the  Lord.,  they  cannot  go  back.^ 

All  who  have  taken  the  vcws  of  God  upon  themfelves, 
ought,  no  doubt,  to  feel  themfelves  facredly  bound  to  fulnl 
their  engagement.  But  vhat  have  the  wicked  and  unbe- 
lieving to  do,  to  take  Ged's  covenant  into  their  mouths  ; 
yet,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  « If  they  have  opened  their  mouths 
unto  the  Lord,  they  cannot  go  back.^ 

By  greatly  mifapplying  and  wrefting  this  general  truth, 
That  fiich  as  have  opened  their  mouths  unto  the  Lord, 
cannot  go  back,  feveral  minifters  in  the  vicinity  of  Sedg- 
wick have  been  binding  the  confciences  oi  their  hearers,  to 
continue  prafuf.ng  the  traditions  of  men,  becaufe  they  have,  in 
time  pall,  ignorantly  covenanted  to  obfeive  them.  Some 
of  thefe  minifters  are  greatly  abufnig  the  forward  belief 
and  ignorance  of  many  of  their  hearers.  Thefe  ntiniiiers 
are  unab'.e  to  (how  their  people,  that  the  covenant  into  which 
they  have  entered,  is  in  agreement  with  the  command  and 
pattern  given  ;  yet  they  teach,  that  to  break  this  covenant, 
though  ;'/  be  found  neither  in  the  Old  Tejlatnent  nor  in  the 
Neiv^  is  next  to  facrilege  and  perjury,  'i  hus  they  bind 
their  poor  people  with   an  heavy   burden,  of  which   God 


Two  Difcourfes^  Iffc,  43 

will,  I  truft,  ere  long  eafe  them.  Thofe  who  bound 
themfelves  under  an  oath  to  kill  Paul,  might  with  as  much 
propriety,  have  been  holden  to  peri'everance. — It  may  be 
the  above  minifters  are  not  the  o-nly  ones,  vs^ho  ufe  the  above 
method,  to  retain  their  people  in  the  Jhackles  of  papijlical 
Juperjlition. 

His  ih'ird  article  is,  page  51,  *  It  appears,  that  a  cordial 
and  obedient  beHef  in  all  which  God  has  propofed  in  his 
gracious  covenant,  is  of  high  and  everlafting  importance' 

Truly,  whatever  God  hath  propofed^  or  prom'ijedy  in  his 
gracious  covenant,  is  of  rery  high  concernment  to  all  to 
■whom  this  matter  appertains,  and  it  Ihould  command  their 
cordial  and  obedient  belief.  But  hov/  doth  this  fhow,  that 
Chrillians  have  any  particular  and  high  connexion  with  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion,  by  which  the  vifible  church  in 
Abraham's  family  was  inftituted  ?  Or,  what  hath  this  to 
do  with  the  omnefs  and  famenefs  of  the  gofpel  and  Jevvifh 
churches  ?  Or,  what  hath  this  to  do  with  the  fprinkling  of 
infants  ?  or  with  infant  church  memberfhip  ?  or  with  the 
certain  falvation  of  Ilhmael  and  Efau,  or  of  the  fons  of 
Keturah  ? 

If  we  will  hear  Mr.  Worcefter,  he  will  (how  us  his  opin- 
ion, page  52,  *  It  is  not,  (fays  he)  indeed,  fuppofed  to  be 
fertain^  that  if  you  be  unbelieving  and  dif obedient.,  your  children 
will  be  finally  loft  ;  for  God  may,  as  often  in  his  fovereign 
mercy  he  does,  go  out  of  the  limits  of  the  church,  an4 
beftow  his  grace  on  thofe  who  are  aliens  from  the  common- 
wealth of  Ifrael,  and  ftrangers  from  the  covenant  of  prom- 
ife ;  but  if,  in  this  cafe,  he  does  beftow  grace  upon  your 
children,  it  will  not  be  in  purfuance  of  any  covenant  en^ 
gagenient  to  you.' 

Upon  theie  obfervations  we  may  make  the  following 
remarks : — 

1.  Mr.  Worcefter  places  unbelieving  children  within  the 
limits  of  the  gofpel  church. 

2.  He  gives  us  to  underftand,  that  it  is  probable^  that 
the  children  of  an  unbelieving  parent  will  be  finally  loft  i 
yet,  he  fays,  It  is  not  fuppofed  to  be  certain  that  they 
will  be- 

3.  He  informs  us,  that  God  ufuaify  converts  church  mem- 
bers, or  thole  within  tlie  limits  ,of  the  church  ;  yet,  he  fays, 
*  God  may,  as  often  in  his  fovereign  mercy  he  does,  go 
out  of  the  limits  of  the  church,  and  beftow  his  grace '  on 

■  others. 


44  Letters  on  Rev.  5.  V/orceJier^s^ 

Mr.  Worcefter  hath  a  very  difFerent  idea  of  gofpel  church 
members,  from  what  the  prophets,  Chrift  Jefus,  or  the 
apoftles  had :  they  confidered  and  fpake  of  them  as  being, 
ail  holy.  God  never  converts,  or  beftows  regenerating 
grace,  upon  any  within  the  Itnuts  of  the  gofpel  church,  fave 
it  he  \vhen  he  converts  an  hypocrite,  who  hath  joined  the 
church,  by  profeffing  to  be  holy  when  he  was  not. 

4.  Mr.  Worcerter  inftruds  us  to  believe,  that  God  he- 
flows  regenerating  grace  upon  children,  in  purfuance  of 
fome  covenant  engagement  to  their  parents.  How  difFer- 
ent this  from  the  Bible  !  Or,  at  leaft,  what  hath  the  Bible 
tp  do  with  fuch  an  idea  ?  Where  or  when  did  God  ever 
enter  into  covenant  with  Abraham,  Ifaac,  or  Jacob,  or 
with  any  other  perfon,  to  beftow  faving  grace  upon  their 
children,  in  confequence  of  any  duty  performed  by  parents  ?- 
If  fuch  a  covenant  exifts,  or  ever  did  exift,  where  is  it  re- 
corded ?  If  it  can  be  found,  which  of  the  children  doth  it 
include  ?  the  firil  born  ?  or  the  laft  ?  or  doth  it  include  all  ? 

Have  we  any  information  that  fuch  a  covenant  was  ever 
ohferved  by  niariy  or  fulfilled  by  the  Lord?  If  fo,  where  ?  in 
what  verfe,  chapter,  or  book,  of  either  the  Old  Teftament 
or  the  New  ?  The  fadt  is,  the  whole  matter  appears  to  be  a 
mere  Jewifh  or  papiftical  error  and  fuperitition,  into  which 
Mr.  Worcefter.  and  his  brethren  appear  to  have  been  led, 
as  a  thing  neceffary  to  be  believed,  to  give  more  plaufible 
fupport  to  the  traditionary  notion  of  infant  baptifm. 

It  is, true,  the  Lord  promifed  Abraham  to  be  a  God  to 
him  and  his  feed  after  him.  It  is  alfo  trae,  that  the  Lord 
faidy,"-I  know>him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  houfehoid -  after  him*,  and  they  Jhall  hep  the  v;ay  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  juftice  and  judgment,  thct-the  Lord  may  bring 
upon  Abraham  that  luhich  he  hath  Jpoken  of.  him*'  But  here 
is  no  promife,  that  upon  ribraham's  being  obedient  and 
faithful,  his  children  after  the  Jtijh  fbould  be  fpititual,  or 
regenerate  ;  nor  have  we  information  that  any  of  them 
were  io^  fave  Ifaac,  who  was  the  child  of  promife. 

The  whole  which  Mr.  Worcefter  and  others  have  faid  of 
this  matter,  appears  to  be  a  m.ere  prejudice,  invented  prob- 
ably in  the  fi^  ft  place  to  give  currency  to  the  traditionary 
rite  of  infant  baptiim,  and  infant  fprinkling  ;  and  it  is  man- 
ifeftly  ftill  continued,  to  fupport  the  fame  error. 

But,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  ^  fourthly ,  from  our  fubjed  we 
znay  infer,  that  for  believing  parents  to  give  their  children 
to  God  in  baptifm,  is  a  great  and  important  duty.' 


Tvjo  DifcGurfes,  isfc,  45 

From  what  part  of  his  fubje<fi  does  he  infer  this  ?  He 
hath  no  where  fhown  us,  that  God  hath,  in  any  part  of  his 
v^ord,  enjoined  this,  by  ftatute,  law,  or  piecept,  as  a  duty, 
upon  any  of  his  friends.  But  we  will  hear  what  he  hath 
to  iay,  in  fupport  of  this  inference  ;  for  we  are  willing  he 
ihouid  demonl^rate  it,  if  he  can. 

*  When  God  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  -eftabliihed  his  cov€- 
-nant  with  Abraham,  he  gave  him  the  fign  of  circumcifion, 
a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  ;  and  in  the  felf-fame 
day  was  Abraham  circumcifed  and  Ifhmael  his  fon,  and 
all  the  men  of  his  houfe,  bom  in  the  houfe,  and  bought 
with  money  of  the  ftranger,  were  circumcii'ed  with  him.' 
Fage  53,  he  fays,  *  Circumcifion  has  been  difcontinued,  and 
Ikaptilm  appointed  in  its  place.  But  no  order,  no  intima- 
tion, has  been  given,  that  the/earm  its  prelent  form  is  not, 
as  it  was  exprejsly  required  in  its  ancient  form,  to  be  applied 
to  the  children  of  the  church.^ 

A  few  natural  confequences  from  what  he  here  afferts, 
will  fufficiently  fhow  its  abfurdity, 

1.  A  Carolina  planter  to-day  purchafes  a  fhip-load  of 
Africans,  who  are  worfhippers  of  devils  ;  to-morrow,  their 
malter  is  converted.  Now  he  and  his  heathen  flaves  muft 
be  all  baptized  ;  for,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  Baptifm  hath 
been  appointed  in  the  place  of  circumcifion,  and  all  the 
males  bought  with  money  were  to  be  circumcifed. 

2.  All  thefe  heathen  flaves  belong  to  the  Chriftian 
church  ;  for  thus  it  was  in  the  church  formed  in  Abra- 
ham's family,  if  anyvifible  church  fuhlifted  there. 

3.  The  children  of  all  thefe  worfhippers  of  devils,  muft 
ibe  baptized  :  for,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,    *  no  order,  no  intima' 

iion,  has  been  given,  that  the  feal  in  it*  prefent  form  is  not, 
as  it  was  exprefsly  required  in  its  ancient  form,  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  children  of  the  churchy 

4.  Mr.  Worcefter  has  now,  according  to  his  antichrif- 
^tian  fcheme,  hundreds  of  \\fAX\\^n%  fealed,  Jealed  in  the  churchy 
Jealed  in  the  covenant  of  grace i    for  *  circumcifion   (he  tells 

us)  is  the  outward,  the  appointed,  feal  of  the  covenant,  and 

baptifm  is  appointed  in  its  place.' 

How  much  like  the  man  of  fm  does  Mr.  Worcefter 
appear,  whilft  he  is  urging  upon  the  Chriftian  world,  or 
church,  principles  inevitably  connedled  with  fuch  confe- 
quences !  When  the  leaders  of  God's  people  will  not  abide 
by  his  word,  but  take  liberty  to  alter,  change,  and  mangle 
it  at  their  pleafure,-  they  make  ftrange  work,  and  plunge 
themfelves  and  their  followers  into  mafiy  hurtful  errors. 

D  2 


4^.-  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  V/crceJler's 

One  great  occafion  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  abHirditjes,  into 
which  he  hath  run,  and  falie  ftatements  which  ve  have 
already  leen,  and  of  more  which  we  (kail  foon  fee,  is  his 
unufual  boldnefs  in  wrefting  the  fcriptures,  and  afTerting- 
things  w:hich  he  knew  not.  Perhaps  no  one.  thing  hath 
had  greater  influence  in  darkening  his  mind,  and  blinding 
him  from  the  truth,  than  his  remarkable  miftake,  in  afTert-- 
ing,  more  than  thirty  times,  that  circumcijion  and  baptlfm  are 
the  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  When  any  perfon  ac- 
quires a  habit  of  faying  what  is  not  true,  it  is  not  ftrange, 
Ihould  he  believe  himfelf  when  no  other  perfon  (hould. 
This  is,,  no  doubt,  the  cafe  with  Mr.  Worcefter.  Speaking 
of  circumcifion.  and  baptifm,  he  tells  us,  page  53,  *  The 
feal  has,  indeed,  been  altered.' 

Meply.  It  is  not  fully. believed  by  the  writer,  that  Mr. 
Worcefter  intentionally  fpake  falfeiy  ;  at  the  fame  time, 
there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  what  he*  fays,  about  circum- 
cifion and  baptifm  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  of  the 
feal  of  the  conjenav.t  being  altered.  '1  here  is  t)0t  a  lingle  word 
of  this  in  the  fcriptures  of  truth.  W^ould  the  public  be 
perfuaded  to  fearch  the  fcriptures,  as  the  more  noble  Bere- 
ans  did,  they  v/ouid  find  tliat  infant  fprinkling  is  all  a  mere 
delufion  or  invention  of  men,  like  this  feal  of  the  covenant, 
with  which  Mr.  Worcefter  makes  I'uch  a  (how  of  argument. 

In  pages  5;^,  54,  he  lays,  *  Circumcifion  was  formerly 
the  appointed  pre-requifite  of  admiffion  into  the  church  of 
God  J  baptifm  is  now  the  appointed  pre-requifite  of  admif- 
fion  into  the  fame  church.  In  a  word,  (fays  he)  baptifm 
is  of  the  fame  import,  and  of  the  fame  ufe  in  the  church, 
under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  as  was  circumcifion  under 
the  ancient.' 

Here  is  truth  and  eiTor  mixed  together,  as  they  are  in 
all  his  pages.  It  is  true,  that  circumcifion  was  formerly 
and  always  the  appointed  pre-requlfite  of  admiffion  into  the 
Je.wilh  church,  or  it  was  the  initiating  ordinance.  It  is 
alfo  true,  that  baptifm  is  now,  and  ever  was,  from  the  be° 
ginni-ng  of  the  gofpel  church,  the  appointed  pre-requilite  of 
admiffion  into  it,  or  it  is  ever  the  vifible  admiffion  itfelf, 
notwithftanding.  the  great  miftakes  of  Mr.  Auftin  and 
others,  as  to  this  matter.  But  it  is  not  true,  that  circum- 
cifion aud  baptifm  are,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  fays  they  are, 
pre-requifites  of  admiffion  into- the.  fame  church;  for  in 
A<fls  iii.  we  are  informed,  that  the  very  perlbns  who  were 
circumcifed  and  admitted  to  the  Jewi(h  church,  were  after- 
"wiards  baptized  and  added  to  the  gofpel  churchr     It-would 


T^'o  DifcGurfes^  <^c.  47 

be  an  abfurdity  to  fay,  tbat  a  perfon  was  added  to  a  fociety,  - 
01  which  he  w^as  at  the  time,  and  had  long  been,  a  conftant 
luember  ;  but,  as  abiurd  as  it  is,  this  is  Mr.  Worccfter's 
notion  of  the  bulinefs.  His  theory  is,  tliafe  the  converted 
Jews  were,  by  baptifm,  added  to  the  church,  of  which  they 
had  been  members  from  their  infancy. 

Befides,  it  is  not  true,  as  he  aiferts,  *  that  baptifm  is  of 
the  fame  im.port  in  the  church  under  the  prefent  difpenfa- 
tion,  as  was  circumcifion  under  the  ancient.'  For  circum- 
cinon,  when  adminiftered,  according  to  the  command,  at 
eight  days  old,  only  imported,  that  the  fubjefi  was  a  child 
of  Abraham,  after  the  fieih,  or  a  child  of  a  converted  or 
profelyted  heathen  ;  whereas  baptifm,  v/hen  aJminiftered 
according  to  the  command  and  pattern  given,  imports,  that 
the  fubjeds  of  it  are  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Chriil 
Jefus.  Thus  we  fee,  that  his  theory  leads  him  farther  and 
faitherinto  error  and  milfake. 

Again,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  *  The  whole  analogy  of 
fcripture  goes  to  fupport  this  fentiment,  that  baptifm  has,-. 
in  faift,  taken  the  place  of  circumcifion  ;'  and  then,  to  ef-- 
tabliih  his  fentiment,  deduces  a  paffage  of  fcripture  which 
fays  nothing  to  the  point,  but  only  mentions  the  circum- 
cifion  of  Chrill:,  which  was  made  ivithout  hands.  If  this 
eleventh  verfe  of  the  feeond  chapter  of  ColoiTians,  have  any 
reference  to  luater  baptifm^  it  is  all  gathered  from  the  twelfth 
verfe,  vrhich  fpeaks  of  being  buried  and  ra'ijed  again  in  bap- 
tifm. Should  v.e  allow  Mr.  Worceder  to  be  correft,  in  his 
application  of  the  eleventh  verfe,  to  prove  that  baptifm 
hath  taken  the  place  of  circuracifion,  then  it  would  prove 
the  ruin  of  two  of  his  iil-fupported  opinions,  with  which  he 
hath,  of  late  years^  been  amufmg  the  public.  One  is,  his 
traditionary  notion  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm  5  for  the  text 
has  no  intimation- of  yj?/7Ki/;« 7  for  baptifm,  but  of  being 
buried ~2Lr\d  raifed  again.  The  other  is,  iiis  opinion,  that  this 
text  in  Colofiians,  and  the  parallel  one  in  the  fixth  chapter 
of  Romans,  intend  fpiritual  baptifm  ;  which  they  cannot, 
provided  the  natural  import  of  the  text  is,  that  Chriftian 
baptifm  hath  taken  the  place  of  Jewifii  circumcifion.  In 
this  way  Mr.  Woreefler  might  make  progrefs  in  deftroying 
his.errors;  ruin  two  old  ones  by  the  introducftion  of  a  new- 
one.  So  inconfiftent  is  error,  that  fuch  as  abide  in  it,  can- 
not make  ftraight  paths  for  their  feet. 

In  the  fame  page,  he  tells  us  about  an  exprefs  precept 
for  adminiftering  the  covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the 
(.hurch,  and  that  the  fame  precept  ftill  remains  in-  force, 


4^  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier's 

iTr.lefs  exprefsly  repealed.  His  words  are,  *  There  was, 
under  the  former  difpeniation,  an  exprefs  precept  for  admin- 
Iftering  the  covenant  to  the  htfant  feed  of  the  church.  That 
precept,  varying  only  as  the  Jeal  is  varied,  ftiil  remains  in 
'force,  unlefs  it  have  been  exprefsly  repealed.'  Here  is  the 
appearance  of  fomething  new.  Under  the  former  dhpen- 
fation,  we  are  told,  there  was  an  exprefs  precept  for  admin' 
leering  the  covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the  church  ;  and 
unlefs  this  precept  have  been  exprefsiy  repealed,  it  ftill 
remains  in  force.  Here,  if  Mr.  Worcefter  have  the  truth, 
we,  who  are  Chriftian  adminitfrators,  muft  adminilier  the 
covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the  ChriRian  church.  What 
covenant?  The  covenant  of  baptilm  ?  No,  for  there  is  no 
fuch  covenant  mentioned.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  ? 
No  ;  for  if  we  be  circumcifed  Chrilf  fhall  profit  us  nothing. 
V/hat  covenant  then  ?  The  covenant  of  grace,  or  the  new 
covenant?  No,  for  to  adminifter  that  is  God's  prerogative. 
But  we  may  be  more  inquifitive  than  Mr.  Worcefter  will 
allow  ;  for  he  tells  us,  (after  he  had  taken  every  thing  for 
granted,  which  it  was  necefTary  for  him  to  prove)  that  it  is 
arrogance  for  us  to  demand  any  explicit  precept,  in  the  New 
Teftament,  for  our  practice  in  relation  to  infants,  under  the 
new  difpenfation.  His  words  are,  *  It  is  arrogance,  there- 
fore, to  demand,  for  we  have  no  right  to  expe<5t,  an  explicit 
renewal  of  this  precept  to  be  found  in  the  New  Teftament, 
any  more  than  of  the  precept  f(>r  the  obfervance  of  the 
fabbath.*  This  is  a  fliort  way  of  doing  bufmefs,  to  teil  us 
to  believe  without  evidence,  and  praftife  without  precept 
or  example  ;  and,  if  we  hefitate,  call  us  arrogant. 

Mr.  WorceUer's  note,  pages  ^^,  56,  muft  now  have  a 
moment's  attention,  that  the  public  may  fee  the  fallacy, 
deception,  or  imprudence  of  the  man,  when  he  manages 
his  opponent^  arguments.  If  he  will  confefs  his  ignorance 
■of  the  Baptifts'  fentiments,  then  what  he  hath  aflerted  may 
be  pafTed  over  ;  but  otherwife,  his  management  is  highly 
cenfurable.  But  we  will  hear  a  comprelfed  view  of  this 
note,  and  two  former  ones,  as  put  together  by  himfelf. 
His  words  are, 

*  The  very  palpable  inconfiftencies,  noticed  in  this  and 
two  former  notes,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  exhibit  to- 
gether in  one  point  of  view. 

'  I.  The  covenant  m.ade  with  Abraham  and  his  feed, 
was  only  a  temporal  covenant,  and  formed  only  a  temporal 
church  ;  yet  the  great  promife  of  the  covenant  had  refped, 
not  to.  natural,  but  only  to  fpiritual  ieed  \ 


T^ivo  Difcoitrjes^  is'c.  49 

-  i;.  Though  the  great  promlfe  of  the  covenant  had  re- 
fpeif^,  not  to  natural,  but  only;  to  Ipiritual  ie^d,  yet  the 
ccvenai^t  was  long  ago  abolifhed.  Since  the  coming  of 
Meihah,  God  is  no  longer,  by  covenant;  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham and  his  (fpiritual)  ieed  ! 

*  3.  Though  the  great  promife  of  the  covenant  had 
no  reipedl  to  natural  feed,  5'et  the  natural  feed  were  not 
only  admitted  to  th.e  feal  of  the  covenant,  but  even,  as 
members,  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church  ! 

*  4.  Though  the  Abrahamic  church  was-a  type  of  the 
Chriftian  church,  and  in  that  church  children  were  admit- 
ted to  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  to  all  the  privileges  of 
members  ;  yet  in  the  gofpel  church,  they  are  neither  to  be 
recognized  as  members,  nor  even  regarded  as  fit  fubjefls 
for  the  feal  of  the  covenant  1 

'  Such  (fays  he)  are  a  few  of  the  abfurdities  of  the  Anti- 
psdobaptift  fcheme.' 

If  Mr.  Worceller  knew  no  better,  he  Is  not  to  be  envied i 
If  he  knew  better,  and  yet  hath  given  this  fcphlitical  view 
of  his  opponents-  fentiments,  he  is  to  be  difeiteemed. 

We  will  now  fupply,  in  the  above  particulars,  what  Mr, 
Worcefter  ought  not  to  have  omitted.  Afterwards  the 
public  will  judge,  V:hether- abfurdities  attach  tD  the  Bap— 
tirts,  or  darknefs  and  mifreprefentation  to  Mr.  Worcefter. 
It.  ought,  however,  to  be  previoufly  obferved,  that  the  Bap- 
tifts  never  advanced  the  abfurdities. which  he  fets  to  their 
account :  he  manufaclured  them  to  his  liking,  and  then 
charged  them  upon  his  opponents.  It  may  alfo  be  ob- 
ferved, that  the  Baptifts  diflike  Iris  antifcripturaly?i7/,  which 
he  kQs  fit  to  aifix  to  the  covenant. 

The  above  particulars,  fomewhat  rectified,  are, 

1.  The  co'venant  of  clrcur.-ic'ifiGn^  made  with  Abraham  and 
his  feed,  v-'as  on-iy  a  temporal  covenant,  and  formed  only  a 
temporal  church  ;  yet  the  great  provufe  of  the  covenant  of 
grace  had  refped,  not  to  natural^  but  on-ly  to  fpiritual  feed  ! 

2.  Though  the  great  prom.ife  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
had  refpe(51:,  not  to  natural,  but  only  to  fpiritual  i^ed,  yet 
the  covenant  of  circurccifinn  was  long  ago  abolifhed. 
Since  the  coming  cf  Meffiah,  God  is  no  lenger,  by  the 
covenant  of  circumclfion,  Hhe  God  01^  Abraham  and  his 
(fpiritual  or)  natural  feed  ! 

3.  Though  the  great  promife  of  the  covenant  of  graee 
had  no  refpect  to  the  natural  (ee(\,  yet  the  natural  feed  were 
not  only  admitted  to  circum.cifion,  the  feal  (he  fhould  hs-ve 


50  Letters  on  Rev.  5.  WorceJler*s 

faid  token)  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  but  even,  as  mem- 
bers, to  ail  the  privileges  of  the  Jewilh  church  ! 

4.  Though  the  Abrahamic  church  was  a  type  of  the 
Chriilian  church,  and  in  that  church  children  were  admitted 
to  circumcifion,  the  feal  (the  token)  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  to  all  the  privileges  of  members  ;  yet,  in  the 
gofpel  church,  they  are  neither  to  be  recognized  as  mem- 
bers, nor  even  regarded  as  fit  fubjedls  for  baptifm,  the  feal, 
token,  or  outivard  prGfeJpon  of  internal  nghteoujhefs,  and  of 
thiir  being  partakers  of  the  covenant  cf  grace  ! 

At  the  clofe  of  each  of  thefe  Juppojed  Antipasdobaptift 
abfurdities,  he  adds  a  note  of  exclamation,  or  admiration ; 
and,  indeed,  it  is  a  little  to  be  admired,  that  he  fhould,  in 
four  inftances  at  once,  pervert  the  true  fentiments  of  the 
Baptifts,  and  of  his  own  free  choice,  turn  them  into  abfurd. 
ities ;  and,  after  he  had  finiihed  the  matter,  wonder  at  it 
himfelf,  and  by  his  notes  of  admiration,  fet  the  world  at 
wondering. 

The  public  v/ill  determine  whether  there  be  any  abfurdi- 
ty  in  the  above  particulars,  fave  what  Mr.  Worcefter  has 
occafioned  by  his  unfcripturai  feal,  and  by  mifreprefenting 
the  fentiments  of  the  Baptifts. 

In  pages  57>  58,  he  has  another  note,  which  is  nearly 
as  full  of  error  and  palpable  mifreprefentations  as  the  pre- 
ceding. But  the  writer  is  tired  in  correcting  a  man,  whofe 
errors  are  as  numerous  as  his  lines.  However,  we  mufl 
attend  him  farther,  for  fome  of  his  mod  reprehenfible 
management  is  yet  before  us. 

With  fixed  intention  to  defend  truth,  and  to  dete<ft  error, 

I  am,  &c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jiubhorn  fa5ls^  and  io 
coinmon  fenfe. 


LETTER      Vil. 

MEN,   BRETHRI-.N,   AND   FATHERS, 

Y  OUR  attention  would  not  be  fo  long  arreft- 
ed,  by  remarks  on  Mr.  V/orc-eiler's  miftakes,  had  he  not 


Two  Difcourfes^  l^c.  51 

have  laboured  To  hard  to  deceive  you,  and  employed  fuch 
unwarrantable  means  to  accomplilh  it.  But  brevity  is  not 
greatly  to  be  confulted,  when  truth  i3  either  to  be  vindi- 
cated and  wrefted  from  the  devourer,  or  firil  principles  of 
the  vifible  church  of  Chrift  to  be  given  up. 

Perhaps  no  Proteftant  ever  made  a  bolder  attack  on 
truih,  than  Mr.  Worcefler  has  done,  or  expofed  himfelf 
more  in  the  attempt.  Says  he,  page  59,  *  For  more  than 
three  thouiand  years,  tlie  feal  of  the  covenant  was  univer- 
fally  applied  to  the  children  of  the  churchy  no  one  forbidding 
it. — It  was  thus  for  the  fpace  of  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred 
years  after  the  introdu^Jiion  of  the  Chriftian  aifpenfation.' 

Now,  there  is  not  fo  much  as  a  (hadovv  of  truth  in  all 
this  ;  it  is  at  beft  one  of  Mr.  Worceiter's  bare-faced  mif- 
takes.  I  will  not  accufe  Mr.  Worcefter  of  lying  to  fupport 
a  fmking  caufe,  but  this  I  will  fay,  he  is  either  extremely 
ignorant  of  the  controverfy  in  which  he  writes,  or  he  ivil- 
Ungly  makes  miftakes.  A  volume  of  teftimonies,  in  dire<5t 
contradidtion  to  what  he  afferts,  might  be  cafily  produced. 
Take  the  following  as  a  fample. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Fuller  informs  us,*  that  Chriftianity  had 
a  confiderable  footing  in  England,  not  far  from  the  year 
63,  in  the  reign  of  Arviragus.  From  the  year  6^  to  the 
year  469,  Chriftianity  prevailed  greatly  in  England  ;  and 
multitudes  of  martyrs  of  Jefus  were  flain  there,  durfng  the 
Roman  heathen  perfecutions,  particularly  in  that  under 
Dioclefian  and  Maximian  his  colleague. f 

In  the  year  469,  the  Saxons  invaded  England,  and  foon 
made  a  complete  conqueft,  fo  as  to  drive  all  the  Chriftians 
into  Cambria,  which  is  now  called  Wales.  Here,  for  up- 
wards of  an  hundred  years,  the  opprefled  and  perfecuted 
remains  of  the  Britifh  church,  had  a  place  of  fome  reft  ; 
till  St.  or  rather  Sinful  Auftin,  in  the  year  596,  came  into 
England,  with  about  forty  of  his  papiflical  aiTociates.:|: 
He  miet  with  great  fuccefs  in  converting  the  heathen  Saxons 
to  the  fuperftitions  of  popery.  After  he  had  accomplifhed 
this  bufmefs,  his  next  was  to  convert  the  old  Britifh  church 
(which  had  fled  into  the  woods  and  mountains  of  Wales) 
from  the  order  and  difcipline  which  they  had  received  from 
the  apoftles  or  primitive  mifiionaries,  and  kept  pure  till 
that  time.^ 

*  Eag.  Bap.  Hifl.  p.  456.         +  Rapin's  Hift.  Eng.  Vol,  I.  p.  28, 
\  Fox's  Mart.  p.   149. 
5  Fox's  Mart.  p.  153.     fuller's  Church  Hillory,  p.  6i. 


52  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Worce/ier\s 

All  which  I  need  here  fhow,  to  eftablilh  my  point,  is, 
that  the  remains  of  the  primitive  Britilh  church  were  An- 
tipasdobaptiftsj  or  that  they  did  not,  and  would  not,  baptize 
their  children.;  which  is  perfedly  evident,  from  Uie  accom- 
modating propofals  which  Auftin  made  to  them.  His 
propofals  were,  "  That  they  fhould  embrace  the  ceremonies 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  particularly,  in  the  time  of  keepii.-g 
Eafter,  and  in  baptlx'tng  their  children^'  He  iabouied  to 
bring  them  to  thefe  fuperftitions  of  the  mother  cf  harlots^ 
and  threatened  them  with  deftrucftionj  if  they  would  not 
comply.  Thefe  noble  Britons  determ.ined  to  abide  in  the 
dodrines  and  ordinances  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  would  not 
fubmit  to-  the  traditions  of  men. 

The  confequence  of  their  fidelity  to  their  Lord,  was 
.fierce  perfecution  and  great  deftrudion,  with  which  Auftin 
threatened  them  ;  and  which,  upon  their  lefufai,  it  is  lup- 
pofed  he  procured  to  be  brought  upon  them  by  Ethelfride, 
king  of  Northumberland,  who  ilew  eleven  or  twelve  hun- 
dred of  them  in  one  da.y,  at  one  place.*  Here  it  is  certain, 
that  the  perfecuted  Britilh  church,  about  the  year  600,  were 
Antipaedobaptifts ;  and  it  is  equally  certain,  by  fair  deduc- 
tion, that  their  anceftors  were  fo,  from  the  tirlt  planting  of 
Chriftianity  in  England. 

This  is  one  impregnable  contradidlion  to  Mr.  Worcefter's 
too  bold  affertion  :  for  thefe  truly  Chrillian  Britons  not 
Gnly  did  not  pradtife  infant  baptifm,  but  chofe  death  rather 
than  to  defile  the  church  of  Chriil  with  this  popilh  fuper» 
ftition. 

Salmafius  and  Suiferus,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Booth,  Vol. 
II.  page  76,  informs  us,  that  in  the  two  firft  centuries,  no 
one  was  baptized,  except,  being  inilruded  in  the  faith,  and 
acquainted  with  the  do(5lrine  of  Chrift,  he  was  able  to  pro- 
fefs  himfelf  a  believer  ;  becaufe  of  thofe  words,  "  He  that 
belie'vethf  and  is  baptized.^'  Firft,  therefore,  he  was  a  be- 
liever. Thence  the  order  of  catechumens  in  the  church. 
Then  alfo,  it  was  the  conftant  cuflom  to  give  the  Lord's 
fupper  to  thofe  catechumens  immediately  after  their  bap- 
tifm-t 

Thefe  two  witnefTes  teftify,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  has  not 
given  us  the  truth. 

•  Hift.  Eng.  Bapt.  pref.  p.  aa,  23,  24. 

t  Et)ift.  ad  Juftum  Patium,  apud  Van  Dale  Hift.  Baptifm.  Siw  uri 
Thcfau.  Ecdcf.  lub.  vou  Suraxis.  Tom,  ii  p.  1136. 


Two  Dlfcourfesj  l^c,  53 

Johanus  Bohemias,  as  mentioned  by  Mr.  Andrews,  fays, 
«♦  It  was,  in  time  part,  the  cuftom  to  adminifter  baptifm  to 
them  that  were  inftrudled  in  the  faith  ;  but  afterwards, 
when  it  was  thought  and  adjudged  needful  to  eternal  life, 
to  be  baptized,  it  was  ordained  that  new-born  children 
fhould  be  baptized,  and  godfathers  were  appointed,  who 
Ihould  make  confeffion  and  renounce  the  devil  on  their 
behalf.* 

The  Petrobrufians  were  condemned,  in  the  Lateran  coun- 
cil, under  Pope  Innocent  II.  in  the  year  1139,  for  rejeding 
infant  baptifm. f 

If  no  one  forbade  the  baptifm  of  new-born  infants,  how 
came  it  to  pafs  that  Auguftine,  in  the  fourth  century, 
warned  his  hearers  and  readers  to  beware  of  the  Baptifts, 
and  of  the  Antipasdobaptifls  of  his  day  ;  and  when  writing 
of  infant  baptifm,  to  fay,  *'  Let  none  fo  much  as  tvhifpcr  any 
other  doBrine  in  your  ears  r"'  And  how  is  it  that  the  council 
at  Carthage,  in  the  fifth  century,  fhould  fay,  "  It  is  our  _ 
pleafure,  that  whofoever  denieth  that  new-born  infants  are 
to  be  baptized — let  him  be  accurfed  ?'*  Befides,  if  no  one 
forbade  infant  baptifm.,  for  t-xoeive  or  fifteen  hundred  years  after 
the  commencement  of  the  Chrifiian  difpeifation.,  how  is  it  that 
Mr.  Worcefter  brings  forward  Walafrid  Strabo,  of  the 
ninth  century^  as  reprefenting  that  infant  baptifm  took  its 
origin  in  the  time  of  Auftin  ?  (as  it  m.anifeftly  did  in  En- 
gland.) How  is  this,  matter  ?  How  can  it  be  reconciled, 
that  fo  many  fpake,  and  fpake  bitterly,  againft  thofe  who 
rejeded  infant  baptifm,  in  thofe  early  times,  if  not  one,  in 
thofe  times,  ever  forbade  or  fpake  againft  that  fuperftitious 
pradice  ?  This  is  enough  to  evince  that  Mr.  Worceiler's 
pen  is  incorrect. 

In  pages  59,  60,  Mr.  Worcefter  has  the  following  notice- 
able expreffions  :  *  If  during  the  laft  three  hundred  years, 
there  have  been  fome,  in  the  different  parts  of  Chriftendom, 
who  have  forbidden  little  children  to  be  brought  to  Chrift, 
and  denied  the  application  of  the  feal  of  the  covenant  to 
them  ;  yet,  thanks  be  to  God,  in  refpect  to  this  interefting 
matter,  the  great  body  of  the  church  has  ftill  adhered  to  the 
divine  inftitute,  and  to  the  uniform  pradice  of  the  faithful  in 
all  former  ages.^ 

In  this  quotation,  we  find  one  falfe  infmuation  and  one 
groundlefs  aftertion,  provided  the  church  of  Chrift,  and  not 

*  Andrews's  Vindic.  p.  106.  f  De  Rebat  Ecclcf.  c.  26. 

E 


54  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  WorceJier'*s 

the  church  of  Antlchrlft,  be  intended,  as  having  adhered  to 
the  inftitute  of  infant  baptifm  ;  divine  injlitute  {traditicnury 
or  fuperjlitious  injlitute^  he  fhould  have  faid.) 
.  His  falfe  infmuation  is,  that  the  Baptifts  have  forbidden 
little  children  to  be  brought  to  Chrift.  There,  is  no  truth 
in  this.  He  has  not  produced,  and  it  is  believed  he  cannot 
produce,  fo  much  as  a  fingle  inftance,  in  which  a  Baptift 
hath  forbidden  little  children  either  to  be  brought  to  Chrift 
or  to  come  to  him.  Does  he  fuppofe,  that  to  l)ring  little 
children  to  baptifm,  is  bringing  them  to  Chrift  ?  It  is  true, 
th>e  Papifts  may  have  fome  fuch  abfurd  notion  ;  but  the 
Bible  has  never  told  us,  that  this  was  bringing  them  to 
Chrift  ;  nor  hath  Chrift,  nor  his  difciples,  nor  his  apoftles, 
ever  once  mentioned  fuch  a  pradice.  Not  a  word,  from 
Genefis  to  Revelation,  is  faid,  about  infant  baptifm,  much 
lefs  of  its  being  a  divine  injlitute^  or  of  this  being  the  way  to 
bring  little  children  to  Chrift. 

His  groundlefs  aftertion  is  this  :  *  The  great  body  of  the 
church  has  ftill  adhered  to  the  divine  inftitute  (infant  bap- 
tifm) and  to  the  uniform  praflice  of  the  faithful  in  all 
former  ages.' 

In  this  groundlefs  aftertion,  there  are  two  very  great 
miftakes.  The  firft  is,  that  the  great  body  of  the  church, 
meaning  the  church  of  Chrift,  adheres  to  infant  baptifm. 
The  other  is,  that  the  faithful,  in  all  former  ages,  have 
adhered  to  this  pra<51ice. 

Two  definitions  appear  to  be  both  lawful  and  expedient, 
in  this  place. 

One  is,  The  vifdle  church  of  Chrijl^  is  compofed  of  all  thofe 
righteous  ones,  ivho  have  been  batti%ed  upon  a  profejfion  of  their 
faith  in  Chrif}. 

The  other  is,  The  vifhle  church  of  Antichrijl^  is  compofed  of 
mil  thofe^  ivho  have  been  baptised,  or  fprinhled^  in  manifejl  un- 
belief 

Thefe  plain  definitions  may  caufe  fome  hard  judgments 
to  be  pronounced  againft  me,  by  defigning  and  by  errone- 
ous men  ;  but  with  me,  it  is  a  fmall  thing  to  be  judged  of 
man's  judgment. 

We  will  now  take  notice  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  groundlefs 
ajfertion.  He  fays,  <  The  great  body  of  the  church  adheres 
to  infant  baptifm.'  Had  he  faid.  The  great  body  of  the 
church  of  Antichrift  adheres  to  it,  no  body  could,  with 
trutli,  contradiifl  him.  For,  infint  baptifm  hath  been  one 
of  the  main  pillars  of  Antichrift,  from  the  beginning  ;  and 
^me   of  the  feeds  of  this   appear  to   hnve  been  fovving,   by 


Tvjo  Difcourfesy  ^fr.  $$ 

the  Jud  tlzlng  teachers,  among  the  churches  of  Galatia, 
even  in  Paul's  day.  But  nothing  is  farther  from  the  truth, 
than  this  fentiment,  that  the  great  body  of  the  church  cf 
Chrirt  hath  adhered  to  infant  baptifm.  Infiiead  of  this, 
not  fo  much  as  any  fmgle  branch  of  this  church,  in  any 
place  or  age  of  the  world,  hath  ever  adhered  to  it.  Infant 
baptifm  is  peculiar  to  Antichrift's  kingdom  ;  and  it  is  ex- 
pedient, that  fuch  as  fear  God,  and  are  not,  through  preju- 
dice, both  blind  and  deaf  to  truth,  fhould  have  here  ex- 
plained to  them,  what  hath,  perhaps  more  than  any  other 
thing,  darkened  the  minds  of  many  good  men,  in  this 
matter.  It  is  this, — Thofe  who  have  written  the  hiftory  of 
the  church,  have  given  us  the  hiilory  of  Antichriif 's  church, 
rather  than  that  of  Chriif 's.  Whenever  they  have  giveo  us 
any  hints  of  ChriiVs  church,  they  have  taken  their  docu- 
ments, or  information,  from  the  polluted  pens  of  Anti- 
chrift's friends,  who  have,  uniformly,  reprefented  Chrifl's 
church  as  fome  deformed  {q&l  of  heretics.  Mr.  Worceifer 
appears  to  have  derived  his  information  from  the  fame 
fource,  and  to  have  poflefTed  too  much  of  the  fume  judg- 
ment. 

Mr.  Worceiler  is  not  fo  blamable  for  not  pofTeffing  the 
hiflory  of  the  church  of  Chrift,  as  he  is  for  not  knowing 
her,  when  he  fees  her.  For  the  church  of  Chrift  hath  been 
hidden,  in  the  place  which  God  -appointed  for  her,  for 
twelve  hundred  and  fixty  years ;  and  it  is  not  many  years, 
or  at  mod,  not  many  ages,  fnice  fhe  left  her  wildernefs 
ftation,  and  hath  been  Ifiowing  herfelf  in  the  world  ;  and 
her  hillory  hath  not  yet  been  written,  or  not  collected  into 
regular  form.  But  P^Ir.  Worceiler,  and  his  brethren  too, 
are  very  much  to  be  blamed,  that  they  do  not  know  the 
vifible  church  of  ChriH:,  wherever  ihe  difcovers  herfelf; 
foi  though  her  hiftory  be  not  written,  yet  a  defcription  of 
her  is  given,  and  that  plainly  too,  by  Mofes  and  the  proph- 
ets, by  Chrift  and  the  apoftles.  See  Deut.  xviii.  15,  19. 
Pfa.  xxii.  22.  Ifa.  viii.  18.  liv.  13.  Jer.^  xxxi.  31 — 34. 
John  vi.  45.  A61S  iii.  22,  ult.  Rom.  i  6,  7.  i  Cor.  i.  2. 
2  Cor.  i.  I.  Eph.  i.  I  Thef.  i.  i — 4.  Heb.  ii.  Ii,  12,  13. 
viii.  8 — II.  1  Pet.  rh  9.  In  thefe  texts,  and  In  many 
others,  is  the  Chrillian  church  defignated,  and  plainly  too  ; 
hence  it  is  a  fm  of  ignorance,  not  to  know  her.  But  it 
may  be  a  fm  of  another  kind  to  oppofe  her,  as  he  and  many 

ihis  brethren  have  dared  very  boldly  to  do. 

If  many  of  thofe,  who  oppofe  the  gofpel  church,  be,  as 
we  hope  they  are,  the  people  of  God,  Ipiritually,  they  ought 


5^  Letters  on  Rev,  5.  Worcejier^s 

to  hear  his  word,  Rev,  xvili.  4.  "  Come  out  of  her,  my 
people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  (Antichrifl's)  fms, 
and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues."  Becaufe  that 
many  good  people  are  found  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift, 
this  is  no  argument  that  Antichrift  and  Chrift  are  one  : 
but  this  is  exactly  what  was  to  be,  juft  before  the  dejirudion 
of  fpiritaal  Babylon,  or  the  church  of  Antichrift  ;  fome  of 
God's  people  were  to  be  in  her,  and  now  the  comma»d  is, 
that  they  come  out* 

His  other  groundlefs  aflertion,  *  That  the  faithful,  in  all 
former  ages,  have  adhered  to  the  pradice  of  infant  baptifm,* 
is  refuted  by  what  has  been  juft  now  faid.  If  more  be 
thought  needful,  it  vvill  be  found  in  what  is  foon  to  be  faid 
upon  Mr.  Worcefter's  note,  which  is  now  to  come  under 
confideration. 

The  public  are  earneftly  defired  to  grant  me  a  careful 
attention,  for  I  am  endeavouring  to  plead  the  caufe  of 
Chrift's  rifing  church,  againft  the  laft  ftruggles  of  Anti- 
chrift. 

In  the  note,  pages  6c,  61,  62,  the  fpirit  of  Antichrift 
appears  to  have  done  its  utmoft,  in  fpreadlng,  perhaps,  the 
laft  blind  over  the  miiids  of  God's  people,  in  our  land  of 
free  inquiry.  A  greater  ftietch  of  mifreprefentation  and 
groundlefs  afTertion,  perhaps  never  efcaped  the  pen  of  man, 
than  Mr.  Worcefter  hath  given,  in  the  long  note  to  which 
v.e  Ihali  foon  attend.  The  principal  part  of  this  note  will 
be  inferted,  by  paragraphs  and  fentences,  that  the  public 
may  have  a  full  view  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  fuppofed  ftrength, 
and  may  the  more  fully  difcover  his  weaknefs,  deception, 
falfehood,  and  abfurdity.  Thefe  are  hard  accufations  ; 
but  if  they  be  literally  and  abundantly  juft,  as  applied  to 
Mr.  Worcefter's  writings,  and  if  he  have  made  ufe  of  fuch 
kind  of  management,  in  oppofition  to  the  church  of  Chrift 
Jefus,  and  to  prevent  her  friends  from  beholding  and  em- 
bracing her,  ought  he  not  to  be  expofed,  and  truth  vindi- 
cated, though  it  bring  upon  his  writings  juft  contempt  and 
infamy  .^ 

This  note  begins  thus  : — *  As  there  was  no  dlfpute  about 
baptifm,  in  the  firft  ages  of  Chriftianity,  it  fliould  not  be 
expected,  that  much  would  be  found  particularly  on  the 
fubjeift,  in  the  writings  of  thofe  ages.' 

Anfiver,  There  is  much  found  on  the  fubjed  of  baptifm, 
in  the  writings  of  the  firft  ages  of  Chriftianity  ;  but  not  a 
word  for  infant  baptifm,  in  the  two  firft  centuries,  as  is 
ihown  at  large  by  Dr.  Gale,  in  his  Reflexions, 


TiL'O  Difcourfts,  izfc.  $J 

•  But  (lays  Mr.  Wcrcefter)  becaufe  there  is  nothing 
diieclly  on  the  fiihjecl,  either  for  or  againft  infant  baptifm, 
in  the  fragments  v.hich  have  come  down  to  us,  cf  the  writ- 
ings of  tl;e  firlf  century,  t]\e  Antipaedobaptiils,  with  an 
aifurance  peculiar  to  themfelves,  have  undertaken  to  affert, 
not  to  prove,  that  during  the  firft.  century,  infant  baptifm 
was  not  praclifed  in  the  church.  With  eqUcd  propriety  we 
might  aifert,  even  had  we  no  proof  to  fupport  our  affertlon, 
that  it  was  pracl-iicd  univerfally  :  but  we  are  not  reduced 
to  this  extremity.  The  facred  truth  is,  there  is  as  m.uch 
evidence,  as,  from  the  ftate  of  the  cafe,  could  reafonably  be 
expected,  that  during  the  firft  century,  and  for  feveral  fuc- 
ceeding  ages,  infant  baptifm  v\as  praclifed  in  the  church, 
univeifally,  and  without  contradiction  or  queftion.* 

Anf^duer.  In  the  writings  of  the  firft  century,  we  have 
the  beft  evidence  which  the  circumftances  of  the  cafe  ad- 
mit, that  infant  baptifm  was  then  unknown.  It  was  not 
fpoken  againft  exphcitly,  to  be  fure,  and  for  this  plain 
reafon — the  fcheme  of  infant  baptifm  was  not  then  invented. 
But  what  is  faid  by  Barnabas,  in  his  Epiftle  to  tlie  Corin- 
thians, and  by  Hermas,  in  his  Vifions,  prove  this — that 
infants  were  neceftarily  excluded.  The  fiift  fpeaks  of  the 
perfons  who  were  bapti'z.edy  as  living  upon  the  lelief  of  the 
prom'if  s  and  of  the  "o^ord.  The  other  fpeaks  of  the  bapti^edy 
as  having  been  taught  in  the  word.  In  Ihnrt,  they  both 
give  us  an  account  of  believers'  baptifm,  and  of  that  only.* 
'I'his  is  altogether  inconfiftent  with  ih'd  fuppojitkn,  that  they 
pracf'tftd  infant  unbelievers^  baptifm..  Yes,  it  is  wholly  incon- 
fiftent with  the  idea,  that  when  heathen  parents  or  mafters 
were  converted,  their  unconverted  children  and  fervants 
were  admitted  to  baptifm. 

Thefe  fathers  faid  all  which  their  circumftanccs  permit- 
ted, to  put  infant  baptifm  out  of  countenance  in  our  day. 
It  is  abfurd  to  require  that  they  Ihould  have  faid  more,  and 
equally  abfurd  to  infer,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  does,  that  be- 
caufe they  did  not  fay  more  than  their  circumftances  per- 
mitted, they  implicitly  favoured  It. 

*  But  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  the  Antipasdobaptifts,  with 
an  affurance  peculiar  to  themfelves,  have  undertaken  to 
affert,  not  to  prove,  that  during  the  firft  century,  infant 
baptifm  was  not  pradifed  in  the  church.' 

*  Gale's  Refledtions,  Let  ii. 

E   2 


5^  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  WorceJier*s 

Reply.  We  have  appealed  to  the  Bible,  to  ftubborn  fads, 
and  to  common  fenfe.  If  all  or  any  of  thefe  may  be  ad- 
mitted as  witnefs,  and  thefr  evidence  taken  as  proof,  then 
we  have  undertaken  to  prove^  and  not  merely  to  ajferty  that 
infant  baptifm  was  not  pradifed  during  the  firft  century  of 
the  church.  The  Bible  is  not  only  filent  as  to  the  pradice 
of  infant  baptifm,  but  enjoins  pre-requifites  to  baptifm, 
which  are  incompatible  with  the  capacity  of  infants.  One 
Bible  pre-requifite,  and  it  is,  in  the  prefent  cafe,  equally 
conclufive  with  a  thoufand,  is  this — the  fubjeds  of  baptifm 
Tnuft  be  Jirjl  taughty  and  fo  taught  as  to  be  vifible  believers, 
Matt,  xxviii.  Mark  xvi.  This  is  the  Bible  teRimony,  as  to 
the  firft  century,  and  indeed,  for  every  other,  as  to  infant 
baptifm  and  the  pradice  of  it. 

Stubborn  fads  fay,  that  the  fathers,  the  bifnops  and  elders 
of  the  church,  in  the  firft  century,  pradifed  as  the  Bible 
enjoins,  and  baptized  thofe  who  were  previoufly  taught 
and  brought  to  believe ;  and  we  have  not  one  hne  of  the 
contrary  pradice,  that  is,  of  unbelievers'  baptifm,  the  firft 
error  of  Antichrift,* 

Common  fenfe  teftifies,  that  if  the  fathers  of  the  firft 
century  baptized,  as  they  tell  us  they  did,  upon  a  profeffion 
of  friith  by  the  candidates,  and  fay  not  a  word  of  baptizing 
any  without  fuch  a  profeffion,  then  Mr.  Worcefter  has  no 
claim  upon  our  belief,  when  he,  without  a  fhadow  ©f  evi- 
dence, tells  us,  that  *  the  facred  truth  is,  there  is  as  much 
evidence,  as,  from  the  ftate  of  the  cafe,  could  reafonably  be 
expeded,  that  during  the  firft  century,  and  for  feveral  fuc- 
ceeding  ages,  infart  baptifm  was  pradifed  in  the  church, 
univerfally,  and  without  contradidion  or  queftion.' 

We  fhali  now  examine  his  argument,  or  rather  what  he 
h?.th  told  us,  and  meant  we  fhould  take  upon  his  mere 
tefiimony. 

*  In  the  v/ritings  of  Clemens  Romanus  and  Hermes  Paf- 
tor,  both  cotemporaries  with  the  apcftles,  (fays  he)  paffages 
are  extant,  which,  by  fair  implication,  prove  the  pradice 
of  infant  baptifm  in  their  day.'  Mr.  Worcefter  gives  us 
not  a  line  from  the  writings  of  either  ;  nor  does  he  dired 
us  where  we  may  find  fo  much  as  a  fcrap,  which  implies 
any  fuch  thing.  If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  look 
int  Dr.  Gale's  Refledions  on  Dr.  Wall's  liiftory  of  infant 
Japtifm,  or  into  Hermes  Paftor's  Vifions,  Lib.  I.  Vif  iii^ 
cliap.  2,  5,  6,  7.  he  may  difcover  the  reafon  why  Mr.  Wor^ 

*  See  Gale's  Refle(5lioi\s. 


Tvjo  Difcourjci^  ^r.  59 

cefler  made  no  quotations.  It  is  evident,  none  would  have 
been  to  his  purpofe  :  for  they  fay  not  a  word  about  infant 
baptifm,  or  any  thing  which  looks  like  it,  or  implies  it,  (if 
we  may  credit  either  Dr.  Wall  or  Dr.  Gale)  unlefs  we 
confider  thefe  fathers  as  being  Papijis^  and  then,  becaufe 
tliey  held  to  the  corruption  of  nature,  conclude  that  they 
mult  to  infant  baptifm,  as  an  antidote.  But  this  argument 
is  equally  good,  to  prove  that  all  the  CalviriRic  Baptills 
hold  to  infant  baptifm. 

We  m.ay  hence  fee,  with  fufficient  clearnefs,  why  Mr. 
Worcefter  ventured  no  quotations  irom  the  fathers  of  the 
firft  century  :  and  for  the  fam.e  reafon,  probably,  he  ven- 
tured none  from  the  fathers  of  the  fecond.  He  only  tells 
us,  that  '  Juftin  Martyr  and  Irenssus  are  more  particular 
and  clear,  to  the  fame  puipofe.'  Yes,  fays  he,  '  more  par-, 
i'lcular  and  clear^^  yet  not  fo  much  as  m.ention  the  fubject. 

As  Mr.  Worcefter  hath  not  fcen  fit  to  give  us  a  line  from 
the  writings  of  the  ancient  fiuhers  of  the  tvro  firft  centuries^ 
I  will  fet  before  the  public  a  fhort  quotation  out  of  the 
apology  which  Juftin  Martyr  m.ade  before  the  Roman  em- 
peror \  it  may  be  taken  as  a  farnple  of  the  fentim.ect  of  the 
church  in  his  time,  as  to  baptifm  and  the  fubjects  of  bap- 
tifm. The  pailage,  as  Mr.  Reeves  translates  it,  is,  "  I  fhall 
now  lay  before  you  (fays  Juilin  to  the  emperor)  the  man- 
ner of  dedicating  ourfelves  to  God  through  Chrift,  upon 
our  converfion  ;  for,  fhould  1  omit  this,  I  might  feema  not 
to  deal  fnicerely,  in  this  account  of  the  Chriftian  religion. 
As  many,  therefore,  as  are  perfuaded  and  hellei^e,  that  the 
things  taught  ^.wd  /aid  by  us  are  true,  and  moreover  take 
upon  them  to  live  accordingly,  are  taught  "iO  pray  and  ajk  of 
Gody  tvith  fajlirg,  the  forgivenefs  of  their  former  fins  ; — and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  they  are  brought  to  2.. place  of  icater^ 
and — are  v/ashed  in  the  name  of  God  the  Father  and 
Lord  of  all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jefus  Chrift— The  reafon 
of  this  (fays  Juftin)  we  have  from  the  apoftles  ;  for  having 
nothing  to  do  in  omt  Jirji  birth,  but  being  begotten  bj  nscejjity^ 
or  'without  our  oavn  confmt. — The  penitent,  who  now  makes 
his  fecond  birth  (or  his  public  putting  on  the  Lord  Jefus) 
an  ad  of  his  own  choice,  has  called  over  him  the  name  of 
God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all  things,— -And,  moreover, 
the  perfon  baptized  and  illuminated,  is  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jefus, — and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft."  * 

*  Booth's  Psedobaptifm,  Vol.  II.  p.  xiOj  iii» 


6o  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/ler^s 

Tiiis  is  nr.e  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  wltnefTes,  and  he  is  a 
good  one,  -to  fhow  that  Mr.  Worcefter  has  endeavoured  to 
palm  an  impofition  upon  the  public  :  for  here  is  not  merely 
a  filence,  as  to  infant  baptifm,  but  a  complete  prohibition 
of  it.  For  the  Martyr  cotitrojls  our  natural  hirth  with  our 
haptifm^  and  tells  us,  that  one  is  ivithout  our  confeiit^  but  the 
other  an  a<51:  of  our  own  choice.  This  is  the  Bible  iiwj,  this 
is  the  Chriilian  way,  this  is  the  good  eld  way,  to  receive 
baptifm  as  an  acl  of  our  aivn  choice.  But  to  be  baptized 
without  our  cgnfent,  as  all  infants  are,  is  the  zuay  of  man's 
invention,  the  papiilical  ivayy  the  way  of  Antichrift. 

Nor  does  Irenaeus,  nor  any  one  of  the  fathers  of  the 
fecond  century,  fay  one  word,  which  he  can  prove  to  his 
purpofe.* 

Mr.  Worcefter  next  comes  down  to  the  third  century, 
and  tells  us,  *  TertuUian  and  Origen  are  explicit  on  the 
fubje^t.'  Then  we  may  exped  fomething  to  the  purpofe. 
And  what  fays  TertuUian  ?  Not  a  word  which  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter quotes  ;  nor  had  he  any  thing  to  the  point,  to  quote 
from  him.  But  we  will  hear  what  TertuUian  lays,  for  he 
has  fomething  to  f  ly,  and  fomething  too  which  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter Vv'ould  be  glad  not  to  hear. 

TertuUian,  fpeaking  of  repentance,  of  the  ufe  and  necef- 
fity  of  it,  fays,  "  Baptifm  is  the  feal  of  faith,  w  hich  faith  is 
begun  and  adorned  by  the  faith  of  repentance.  We  are 
n  )t,  therefore,  tvnjloid,  that  we  may  leave  finning ^  but  be- 
caufe  we  have  already  dons  it^  and  are  already  purijied  in  our 
hearis.''^\  Dr.  Gale,  upon  thefe  words  of  TertuUian,  makes 
the  following  obfervations,  (p.  512,  513.)  *'  Are  thefe  the 
words  of  a  man,  who  thought  baptifm  might  be  given  to 
Infants  ?  Are  infants  already  purified  in  heart  ?  Have  they 
I  ft  finning?  and  are  they  therfore  wafjcdP  Have  they  any 
fuch  faith  as  TertuUian  here  fpeaks  of?  and  yet  he  fays, 
Baptifm,  the  feal  of  this  fort  of  faith  particularly  ;  and  there- 
fore, doubtlefs  he  thought  the  feal  could  not  be  regularly 
applied,  where  this  faith  was  wanting." 

I'his  is  one  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  witneftes  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century  ;  and  we  will  hear  a  little  more 
of  his  teftimony.  Mr.  Booth  gives  us  the  following  fenti- 
ments  of  TertuUian,  out  of  Du  Pin's  tranflation  :  '*  Jefus 
Chrift:  fays,  indeed,    Hinder   not  little  children  from  coming  to 

*  Sec  Gale's  Ref.  throughout,  Booth's  Paedobap.  Vol.  II.  p.  7^—86, 
and  even  Dr.  Wall  himfclf. 

I  D«  Penctentia,  cap.  vi.  p.  f  25.  B. 


Two  Difcourfesy  Ifc.  6\ 

me  J  but  that  they  fhould  come  to  him  as  focn  as  they  are 
advanced  in  years,  as  foon  as  they  have  learned  their  reli- 
gion, when  they  may  be  taught  whither  they  are  going, 
when  they  are  become  Chriftians,  vrhen  they  begin  to  be 
able  to  know  Jefus  Chrift. — Thofe  who  fhall  duly  confider 
the  great  weight  and  moment  of  this  divine  lacrament,  will 
rather  be  afraid  of  making  too  much  hajle  to  receive  it,  than  to 
defer  it  for  fome  time,  fo  they  may  be  the  better  capable 
of  receiving  it  more  worthily.''  * 

The  public  will  probably  be  at  no  befitancy,  why  Mr. 
Worcefter  produced  no  quotations  for  the  two  firft  centu- 
ries, and  for  the  beginning  of  the  third  :  it  is  fufficiently 
obvious  he  had  none  to  ofcer.  It  is  no:  a  little  furprilmg, 
that  he  fhould  prefume  fo  much  upon  the  credulity  of  the 
public,  as  to  iuppcfe  they  would,  in  fuch  an  important 
matter  as  the  prelent,  take  his  bare  word,  as  the  ground  of 
their  belief,  for  the  fpace  cf  more  than  two  hundred  of  the 
firft  years  of  Chriftianity. 

The  nrii  appearance  of  evidence,  which  Mr.  WorceRer 
brings  forward,  in  fupport  of  infant  baptifm,  is  in  the  follow- 
ing repur.eJ  words  of  Crigen  :  "  What  is  the  reafon,  that, 
whereas  the  baptifm  of  the  church  is  given  for  forgivenefs, 
infantt  alfo,  by  the  ufage  cf  the  church,  are  baptized  ; 
when,  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  which  wanted  for- 
givenefs or  mercy,  baptifm  would  be  needlefs  to  them  ?'* 
This  quotation  Mr.  WorceRer  probably  took  from  Rufi- 
nus's  corrupt,  and  very  little  to  be  depended  upon,  tranf- 
lation  of  Origen,  or  from  fome  author  v/ho  had  drawn  it 
from  that  fource. 

There  are  two  reafcns,  which  render  it  probable,  that 
even  Origen,  who  lived  in  the  middle,  if  not  towards  the 
latter  end.  of  the  third -century,  did  not  belitve  in  infant 
baptifm,  and  has  faid  nothing  in  its  favour.  One  reafon 
is,  That  nothing  can  be  found,  in  any  of  his  writings  which 
are  now  extant,  to  (bow  that  he  believed  any  fuch  thing. 
The  ether  is,  There  are  fome  paifages,  in  his  original 
Greek,  which  appear  not  reconcileable  with  the  fentiment, 
that  Origen  was  a  Psedobaptift.  I  will  mention  one,  and 
one  too  w^hich  Dr.  Wall  has  fclefted  cut  of  the  original 
writings  of  Origen,  confidering  it  to  be  as  much  to  his 
purpofe  as  any  palfage  which  can  be  depended  upon  as 
being  Orlgen's.  -Mr.  Booth  gives  us  the  palfage  from  Dr. 
Wall,  thus  :  "  One  may  inquire,  when  it  is  that  the  angels^ 

*  Booth's  FceJobaptifm,  Vol   II.  p   92,  9^, 


6'2  Letters  ok  Rev,  S.  Worcejler^s 

here  fpoken  of,  are  fet  over  thofe  little  ones,  fhowed  or 
fignitied  by  our  Saviour ;  whether  they  take  the  care  and 
management  of  them,  from  the  time  when  they,  by  the 
vafliing  of  regeneration,  whereby  they  were  new-born,  do 
as  new-born  babes  defire  the  fmcere  milk  of  the  word,  and 
are  no  longer  fubje<51  to  any  evil  power,  or  from  their  birth, 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  and  his  predefti- 
nating  of  them,  &c."* 

We  have  two  reafons  to  offer,  why  it  is  not  fuppofable 
that  Origen  intended  infants  in  age,  but  muft  have  intended 
infants  in  grace.  One  is,  He  fpeaks  of  them  as  defiring 
the  fincere  milk  of  the  word,  which  infants  of  a  day  or  a 
month  old  are  incapable  of  doing.  The  other  reafon  is, 
He  is  fpeaking  of  thofe  little  ones  whofe  angels  do  always 
'behold  the  face  of  God  in  heaven.  Thefe  little  ones  are 
confidered  by  Calvinillic  divines,  if  not  by  all  others,  to  be 
believers  in  Chrift. 

Mr.  Worceiler  in  the  next  place  brings  forward  Cyprian, 
who  was  bifhop  of  Carthage,  and  prefident  of  a  council 
which  was  holden  in  that  city  in  tl^e  year  253.  Before 
which  council  tl.is  quepLion  was  difcufTed,  "  At  what  age 
ihall  infants  be  baptized  :"  Infant  baptifm  being,  at  this 
time,  fo  novel  a  thing,  that  the  bifliops  were  in  doubt  at 
what  age  it  ihould  be  adminiilered. 

This  council,  compofed  of  African  biihops,  is  the  firft 
we  read  of,  which  explicitly  admitted  the  fuperftiticus  and 
antichriftian  pradlice  of  infant  baptifm.  Not  an  European 
or  Afiatic  bifhop  does  Mr.  Worcefter  produce,  for  even 
the  third  century,  who  fpake  one  word  in  favour  of  infant 
baptifm  :  nor  does  he  produce  any  credible  evidence,  that 
any  in  Africa  adopted  this  practice,  till  the  year  253,  or 
nearly  that  date.  And  we  confefs.  that  we  are  not  careful 
nor  folicitous  to  fhow,  tlrat  infant  baptifm  did  not,  at  this 
time,  begin  to  prevail  confiderably  ;  for  not  far  from  this 
time,  as  1  may  at  a  future  period  fliow  at  large,  the  church 
of  Jefus  began  to  take  her  place  in  the  wilder nefs,  as  God 
had  appointed  hei'. 

Mr.  Worceder  now  comes  down  to  the  fourth  century, 
and  manifeftiy  with  a  confiderable  degree  of  courage,  as 
well  he  may,  for  now  he  hatli  fomething  to  fhow  for  infant 
baptifm  :  for  the  error  for  which  he  pleads,  had  not  a 
little  prevailed,  before  the  end  of  this  century.  Says  he, 
*  Gregcry   Nazianzen,   Bafil,  Ambrofe,  Chryfcftome,  and 

•   Wall's  Hlft.  of  Inf.  Bap   Part  I.  p   33. 


Two  Difcourfts^  Iffc,  6  7^ 

Jerome,  all  of  whom  flourlllied  within  about  a  hundred 
years  of  Origen  and  Cyprian,  are  all  explicit  on  the  fub- 
jed  ;  explain  the  defign  of  infant  baptifm,  mention  it  as 
coming  in  the  place  of  circumcifion,  and  fpeak  of  it  as  the 
univerfal  and  undifputed  practice  of  the  church.' 

Mr.  Worcefter,  even  in  this  fourth  century,  which  was 
famous  for  the  invention  of  fuperftitious  ceremonies,  runs 
a  little  too  fall,  and  takes  more  for  granted  in  fix  lines, 
than  he  will  be  able  to  prove  in  the  fame  number  of  years. 
We  are  willing  to  grant  him  every  word  of  truth,  for  we 
fear  nothing  from  that  quarter  ;  but  we  mud  correct  him 
ftep  by  ftep,  that  no  impofition  may  be  palmed  on  the 
public.  He  tells  us,  that  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Bafil,  who 
was  bilhop  of  Cefyrea  ;  Ambrofe,  who  was  bill. op  of  Mi- 
lan ;  Chryfollome,  billop  alternately  of  Antioch  and  Con- 
ilantinople  ;  and  Jerome,  monk  of  Jerufalem,  are,  all  of 
them,  not  only  explicit  on  the  fubject  of  infant  baptifm,  but 
that  tliey  fpake  of  it  as  the  univerfal  and  undifputed  prac- 
tice of  the  church.    ^ 

We  by  no  means  deny  that  infant  baptifm  was,  in  this 
century,  pracliied  in  the  church  of  Rome  ;  but  that  it  was 
the  univerfal  practice  of  the  church,  as  Mr.  Worcefter 
afTerts,  is  not  true,  unlefs  he  intends  the  univerfal  practice 
of  the  church  of  Antichrift,  which  now  very  manifeftly 
ihowed  herfelf,  and  had  already  driven  the  gofpel  church 
into  her  hiding  place. 

A  few  quotations  will  expofe  Mr.  Worcefter's  miflakes. 

*'  Gregory  Nazianzen,  fpeaking  of  fuch  as  died  without 
baptifm,  inllances  in  fuch  as  were  not  baptized  [dta  ncp'i- 
ofita)  by  reafon  of  their  infancy.  And  the  fame  Nazianzen 
jiimfelf,  though  a  bilhop's  fon,  and  a  long  time  trained  up 
under  his  father's  care,  was  not  baptized  till  he  came  to 
age,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  own  life."  * 

"  Again,  St.  Gregory  advifes  people  to  delay  their  chil- 
dren's baptifm,  till  they  are  capable  to  hear  and  anfwer 
fome  of  the  holy  words." f 

*'  Ambrofe  and  Chryfoftome,  though  born  of  Chriftian 
parents,  were  not  baptized  till  they  were  adult.":}: 

"  St.  Ambrofe,  St.  Jerome,  and  St.  Auflin,  were  bom 
of  Chriftian  parents,  and  yet  not  baptized  till  the  full  age 
of  man,  or  more." 9 

*  Gale's  Reflexions,  p.  39.  f  Ibid.  41. 

\  Hift.  Cng  Bapt.  Vol.  II,  Appen.  p.  68.  §   Ibid   Vol.  I  pref,  n  ji. 


64  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  WorceJler*s 

From  thefe  quotations,  we  fee  that  Gregory,  Chi7fof- 
tome,  Ambrofe,  and  Jerome,  four  of  Mr.  WorceUer's  five 
worthies,  whom  he  brought  to  prove  the  univerfahty  of 
paedobaptifm  in  the  fourth  century,  were  themfelves  the 
children  of  Antip^dobaptifts  ;  their  parents  being  Chrif- 
tians,  and  one  or  more  of  them  bifhops,  yet  did  not  have 
their  children  baptized  :  befides,  Gregory,  the  firft  of  them, 
advifed  the  delay  of  infant  baptifm,  till  they  were  capable 
to  hear  and  anfwer  fome  of  the  holy  words.  The  public 
will  judge  what  credit  is  to  be  attached  to  Mr,  Worcefter's 
affertions. 

We  will  now  hear  what  he  has  to  fay  of  pardobaptifm 
in  the  fifth  century.  The  public  will  obferve  how  he  la- 
bours, continually,  to  imprefs  his  readers  with  an  idea,  that 
what  he  relates  is  much  nigher  the  beginning  of  Chriftian- 
ity  than  what  it  really  is.  What  he  fays,  with  relation  to 
infant  baptifm  in  the  fifth  century,  is  this : — 

*  Auftin,  who  was  cotemporary  with  feme  of  thefe  lafl,  and 
who  Jtouri/Joed  only  about  two  hundred  and  eighty  years  after 
the  apoflles^  in  a  controverfy  with  Pelagius,  alleged  the 
pradice  of  infant  baptifm,  in  proof  of  the  dodrine  of  orig- 
inal fm.  "  Why  are  infants  (fays  he)  baptized  for  the 
remiilTon  of  fin,  if  they  have  none  ?  Infant  baptifm  the 
whole  church  pradtifes :  it  was  not  inftituted  by  councils, 
but  v/as  ever  in  ufe."  Pelagius,  whofe  intereft  it  was  to 
fet  this  argument  afide,  was  fo  far  from  denj^ing  the  al- 
leged fact,  that  in  reply  to  the  fuggeftion  of  fome,  that  by 
denying  original  fm  he  denied  the  right  of  infants  to  bap- 
tifm, he  utterly  difcards  the  idea,  and  afiirms,  that  he  never 
heard  of  any,  not  even  the  moft  impious  heretic,  who  de- 
nied baptiim  to  infants.  I'his  teftimony  (fays  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter)   is  impregnable.'     Why  fo  ?  for  to  it  we  anfwer — 

1.  The  whole  of  this,  fo  far  as  it  has  any  formidablenefs 
in  it,  may  be  a  forgery,  as  many  other  things,  of  the  like 
nature,  have  been  proved  to  be. 

2.  To  make  the  moft  of  it,  it  is  but  the  a/Tertion  of  one 
man  ;  and  if  this  one  man's  fmgle  afTertion,  fhould  not  be 
more  corre(5t  than  fome  of  Mr.  Worcefter's,  it  might  not 
be  thought  impregnable. 

3.  It  is  not  only  the  afTertion  of  but  one  man,  but  this 
one  man  does  not  afiert,  that  there  is  none  who  denies 
infant  baptifm  ;  but  that  he  has  heard  of  none.  Now,  if 
this  Pelagius  had  not  heard  of  every  thing,  his  affertion 
might  be  true,  and  yet  the  whole  body  of  Chrift's  vifible 
church  might  deny  baptifm  to  infants :  for, 


Tvjo  Difcourf^s,  "i^c,  65 

4.  The  vifihlc  church  of  Chrifl  was,  at  this  time,  hidden 
ill  the  place  which  God  had  prepared  for  her  ;  and  little 
or  nothir.g  was  now  feen  or  heard  of  the  true  go/pel  churchy 
in  what  was  called  the  Chriftian  world  ;  but  the  church  of 
Ant'ichrijl  was  in  high  repute.      Hence, 

5.  \i  Pelagins  fpake  or  wrote  the  words  which  Mr, 
Worceiler  fuppofes,  and  if  they  were  the  limple  truth  of 
his  heart,  they  only  prove,  that  Pelagius  knew  nothing  of 
the  hidden  church  of  Chrift.  They  by  no  means  prove 
what  Mr.  Worcefter  wifhed  them  to,  that  the  church  of 
Chriil:  held  to  infant  baptifm. 

As  to  what  Auiiin,  or  Auguftine,  fays,  "  Infant  baptifm 
the  whole  ciaurch  praclifes  :  it  was  not  inftituted  by  coun- 
cils, but  was  ever  in  ufe  ;"  we  anfwer — 

I.  That  he  had  refpeft  to  the  church  of  Antichrifl, 
which  alone  was  in  reputation  in  his  day  ;  and  the  whole 
of  this  church  did,  no  doubt,  then,  as  it  does  ftill,  pra(5life 
infant  baptifm. 

'  2.  As  to  Aufiin's  faying,  "  Infant  baptifm  was  e'^ter  in 
«/>'*  v.-e  need  only  obferve,  if  Aullin  thus  faid,  he  made  a 
large  miftake. 

Mr.  Worcefter  in  the  next  paragraph  is  rather  too  bold 
in  his  aiTertion.  His  words  are,  '  From  this  period  (fays 
he)  the  matter  is  clear,  beyond  difpute.  Dr.  Gill  himfeif, 
one  of  the  moit  learned  of  the  Antipsedobaptift  writers, 
acknov.' ledges  that  infant  baptifm  was  the  practice  of  the 
c.iurc*.  univerfaiiy,  from  the  third  to  the  eleventh  century.' 
Wert'  t  not  that  1  am  grown  familiar  with  Mr,  Worcefter's 
erroneous  ftatemencs  and  groiindiefs  affcriiions,  this  might 
a  little  furprile  me.  I  will  give  the  public  Dr.  Gill's  own 
words,  and  then  each  will  judge  for  himfeif. 

Says  the  Dcclor,  in  his  Brief  Illuftrations,  &c.  chap,  ii, 
conf.  4.  '*  Chrift  has  no  w|iere  promifed,  that  his  dodrine 
and  ordinances  fhould  not  be  pervetted  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, h.is  given  clear  and  JUrong  hitimations,  that  there 
ihould  be  a  general  falling  aiuay,  and  departure  from  the 
truth  and  ordinances  of  the  gofpei,  to  tnake  way  for  the 
revelation  <di  Ar.tlchr'ifi :  and  though  it  will  be  allowed,  that 
during  this  period  infant  baptifm  4:irevailed,  yet  it  did  Not 
univerfaUy  obtain.  There  were  ivUneJfes  fcr  adult  baptifm  in 
every  age  :  and  Chrift  had  a  cJ:urch  in  the  wilderhefsy  in  oh^ 
fcurity,  at  this  time,  namely,  in  the  vallies  of  Piedmont; 
who  were,  from  the  beginning  oi  the  apofiafy^  dnd  AvntneiTed 
againft  it,  and  Ijore  their  tefiimony  againfl  infant  baptifm," 


65  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  lVorcefier*s 

It  is  nothing  ftrange,  that  a  perfon  engaged,  as  Mr. 
Worceiler  is,  in  the  caufe  of  A.ntichrift,  fhouid  pervert  and 
mifrepreient  the  ancients  ;  but  that  a  perfon  of  fenfe  Ihould 
expole  his  charader  and  veracity,  in  flagrantly  mifrepre- 
renting  the  moderns,  as  he  does,  is  not  a  little  to  be  won« 
dered  at. 

After  faying  jufl:  what  he  pleafed,  not  only  without  evi- 
dence, but  contrary  to  evidence,  he  produces  a  quotation 
from  Dr.  Wall's  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm,  as  he  tells 
us,  and  the  quotation  itfelf  is  equally  afide  from  trutli, 
with  his  other  quotations,  and  affertions  of  his  own.  Nor 
in  one  inftance  does  he  inform  us  where  any  of  his  quota- 
tions are  to  be  found :  he  probably  did  not  know,  or  was 
not  fond  of  their  being  examined. 

As  he  comes  near  the  clofe  of  this  Img  note,  to  which 
"we  have  given  confiderable  attention,  he  obferves,  *  The 
unprejudiced  reader  will  now  judge,  with  how  much  can- 
dour and  truth,  an  attempt  has  been  made,  in  fome  late 
publications,  to  m.ake  the  unlearned  and  unliable  beHeve, 
that  the  practice  of  infant  baptifm  had  its  rife  in  the  dark 
ages,  under  the  influence  of  popery.*  I  add.  The  unpreju- 
diced reader  will  now  judge,  with  how  much  candour  and 
truth,  an  attempt  has  been  made,  by  Mr.  Worcefter,  to 
make  the  unlearned  and  unliable  believe,  that  the  human 
rite  of  infant  baptifm.  had  its  i  iie  in  the  days  of  the  apofties, 
and  that  it  was  pralHied  for  t-wehe  or  Jifteen  hundred  yearsy 
no  one  forbidding  ii.  Efpecially,  flnce  the  fame  Mr.  Wcr- 
cefter  tells  us,  that  *from  Walafrid  Strabo  (a  man,  fays 
Molheim,  of  no  mean  reputation)  feme  pailages  have  been 
quoted,  in  which  he  reprefents  infant  baptifm  as  having 
had  its  origin  about  the  time  of  St.  Auttin  :'  v\-hich,  in- 
deedj  appears  to  have  been  the  time  of  the  introdudion  of 
infant  baptism  into  England.* 

*  As  to  the  ailertion  (fays  Mr>  Worcefter)  in  the  Minia- 
ture Hiftory  of  ihe  Baptiits,  "That  the  Waldenfes,  Wick- 
iifiites,  and  HuflTites  were  Baptills,"  it  may  fufiice  to  faf , 
there  is  fufficient  evidence  that  it  has  no  foundation  in 
truth  '  Here  Mr.  Worcefter  takes  all  for  granted.  Let 
Mr.  Worcefter,  or  let  any  other  perfon,  attempt  to  fnow 
that  it  is  not  founded  in  truth,  then  will  the  author  of  it  en- 
deavour, if  life  and  health  continue,  to  fliow  fuch  an  at- 
tem.pt  to  be  vain  ;  and  not  only  fo,  but  that  the  Miniature 
Hiftory  is  fcmnded  on  the  bioad  bafis  of  truth.     For  the 

•  'Sec  Hift.  Eng.  Bapt.  Vol.  II.  pref. 


Tvjo  Difcourfes^  ^c.  67 

prefent,  it  fliall  be  only  cbferved,  that  as  Mr.  Worcefter 
and  his  brethren  can  trace  their  dejcent  from  the  PapilU, 
and  their  peculiarities,  fuch  as  infant  hapiijm^  infknt  church 
niemberfhip,  unbelievers'  baptiim,  baptii'ra  upon  the  faith 
of  others,  &c.  from  the  man  of  fm,  and  no  farther  ;  fo  the 
Baptirts  can  trace  their  defcent,  and  their  pecuharities,  fuch 
as  believers'  baptiim,  communion  of  faints,  &c.  to  the 
Waldenfes,  Wickliffites,  Huffites,  Petrobrufians,  &c.  and 
through  them  to  the  apoftles,  and  to  the  Bible,  vv'here  they 
ftill  find  their  peculiarities,  and  an  account  of  their  anceftors. 

Thus  far  it  appears  that  Mr  Worceiler  is  fubtlantially 
incorre(5t,  in  every  material  point.  Not  to  2l  f ingle  difficulty 
has  he  put  the  Baptifts,  unlefs  the  trouble  of  detecting;  his 
antifcriptural  and  erroneous  notions  of  the  gofpel  church, 
and  the  expofmg  of  his  falfe  pofitions,  be  confidered  one. 

It  is  hoped,  that  the  reader's  deeds  are  not  fo  evil,  and 
his  heart  fo  hard,  that  he  will  reject  the  light,  and  refufe 
to  come  to  it,  left  his  deeds  fhould  be  reproved.  Eternity 
will  reveal  all  errors  and  remove  ignorance,  but  it  will 
never  convert  and  fave  fuch  as  hate  the  light. 

In  the  mean  tim.e, 

I  am,  the  reader's  and  the  public's,  &c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bihle^  to  fzuhhorn  fads^  and  to 
common  fenfe. 


LETTER      VIII. 

MSN,   BRETHREN',   AND   FATHERS, 

\'V  E  would  not  folicit  your  attention  to  any 
more  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  miftakes,  were  it  not  that  the 
honour  of  the  Chriilian  Lawgiver,  the  advancement  of  his 
rifmg  church,  and  your  own  happinefs,  require  that  you 
iTiould  know  the  truth. 

Mr.  Worcefter  in  the  firft  place  took  a  wrong  fet  ofr, 
and  he  has  fo  e-tadly  kept  his  firft  direc'tion,  that  he  has 
feidom  come  v/ithin  fight  of  truth's  highway.  His  notions 
of  the  church  of  Chrift  appear  to  be  as  erroneous  as  were 
the  notions  of  the  old  Jewifti  church  with  refpeft  to  Chrift 


68  Letters  en  Rev,  5.  WorceJ^er's 

himfelf.  He  alfo  appears  to  be  as  ready  to  miirake  what 
is  faid  of  the  gofpei  cliurch,  as  the  Jews  were  to  midake 
what  Chrift  faid  of  himfelf.  Not  only  fo,  but  he  Is,  mani- 
feftly,  equally  ready  to  mifreprefent  the  fentiment  and 
practice  of  the  gofpei  church,  that  he  may  make  room  for 
his  Judaizing  fenLiments,  and  for  his  Jewilh  church  in 
gofpei  times. 

Page  57,  he  tells  the  public,  that  *  when  the  Ar.tipsdo- 
baptifts  would  prove  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  has 
ceafed,  the  arguments  advanced  only  go  to  ihow  that  the 
Mofaic  law,  or  Sinai  covenawt,  is  abolifhed.' 

From  this  flatement  of  the  matter,  no  one  would  receive 
a  juft  idea  of  the  fentiments  or  arguments  of  the  Antipsedo- 
baptifts.  They  have  no  difpofition  to  prove,  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  which  included  the  promife,  that  in 
him  and  in  his  feed  all  the  families  of  the  earth  fhould  be 
bleffed,  has  ceafed.  But  when  they  would  prove,  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  of  circumcifion  has  ceafed,  their  argu- 
ments go  to  (liow,  that  the  law  of  commandments  con- 
tained in  ordinances  is  aboliihed,  and  that  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  is  one  of  thefe  commandments  and  ordinances. 
Let  Mr.  WorceCter  and  his  brethren  prove  the  contiary,  if 
they  be  able. 

Again,  pages  57,  58,  fays  he,  *  When  they  would  prove, 
that  the  infant  feed  of  the  church  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized, the  arguments  adduced  only  go  to  fhow,  that  be- 
lievers, who  have  never  received  baptifm,  ought  to  be 
baptized.* 

Mr.  Worcefter  is  very  forgetful,  or  he  knows  better  than 
to  mifreprefent  matters  in  this  way.  He  knows,  or  ought 
to  know,  for  he  has  had  the  means  of  knowing,  that  the 
arguments  of  the  Antipaedobaptifts  go  to  prove,  that  the 
gofpei  pre-requifite  to  baptifm  is  fuch  as  new-born  infants 
cannot  poifefs,  and  therefore  are  excluded  from  the  ordi- 
nance, by  the  pre-requilJte  enjoined  in  the  inilitution.  Had 
he  have  told  the  public,  that  the  arguments  of  the  Anti- 
psedobaptifts  go  to  prove,  that  the  gofpei  enjoins,  that  per- 
fons  fhall  be  taught,  or  difcipled,  previous  to  baptifm,  and 
lince  new-born  infants  can  be  neither  taught  nor  difcipled 
they  ^re  not  to  be  baptized,  then  would  he  have  told  us 
the  fimple  truth.  But  the  plain  truth  would  not  have 
ferved  his  purpofe  ;  he  therefore  chofe  to  mifreprefent  us, 
cr  elfe  he  has  very  ignorantly  done  it. 

Mr.  Worcefter's^//j  inference,  page  64,  muft  now  com- 
mand a  little  attention  j  and  it   is  worthy  cf  it,   both  on 


Two  Di/cour/esy  '<sfc,  69 

ivccount  of  its  novelty  and  the  popifh  method  which  he 
hath  <^Jopted  in  its  fupport.  The  inference  is,  *  It  may  be 
mferred  Irom  our  fubjeel,  i\\Al  Jprinkiitig  or  offufion  is  a  valid 
and  icriptural  mode  of  baptifm.' 

Would  it  not  have  been  more  fatisfadory  to  the  public, 
had  Mr.  Worcefter  have  fhown  us  from  the  word  of  God, 
that  jprinkl'ing  or  affujion  is  a  valid  and  Icriptural  mode  of 
baptilm  :  but  this  he  could  not  do.  He  has  done  the  beft 
tie  could  :  he  has  inferred  from  his  fubjed  that  it  is  fo  ; 
he  has  alfo  endeavoured  to  prove  ic.  His  argument  is,  in 
(hort,  the  following  : — 

The  Paedobaptift  church  is  the  true  gofpel  church.  The 
true  gofpel  church,  in  all  ages,  has,  according  to  the  pur- 
pofe  and  promife  of  God,  had  effeniially  corred  views  of 
the  facraments.  i  he  true  church,  for  twelve  or  fifteen 
hu..dred  years,  univerfally,  allowed  baptifm  by  fprinkling 
or  affufion  to  be  fcriptural  and  valid.  *  Hence,  if  baptifm 
by  fprinkling  or  affufion  be  not  valid  and  fcriptural,  then^ 
for  the  nrft  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  the  views  of 
the  whole  body  of  the  Chriftian  world  refpedlmg  baptifm, 
the  firft  facrament  of  the  church,  were  effentially  erroneous.' 

Here,  as  his  manner  elfewhere  is,  he  takes  for  granted 
the  very  things,  and  the  only  things,  which  have  need  to 
be  proved,  and  then  draws  his  conclufion,  as  though  his 
premifes  were  eifablifhed. 

In  the  firft  place,  he  takes  for  granted  that  the  Paedo- 
baptift church  is  the  true  gofpel  church,  which  the  Anti- 
paedobaptifts  have  always  denied  ;  and  they  have  ever  con- 
lidered  paedobaptifm  as  a  badge  of  Antichrift,  if  not  her 
effential  chara<fteriftic. 

His  next  premife  is  fully  granted,  and  is,  no  doubt, 
fuiSciently  correct  ;  and,  if  true,  will  fpoil  his  bullnefs  of 
fprinkling  and  affufion.  It  is  this,  The  true  gofpel  church, 
in  ail  ages,  has,  according  to  the  purpofe  and  promife  of 
God,  had  elfentially  corredt  views  of  the  facraments. 

We  will  now  hear  his  other  pofition,  \^hich  is.  The  true 
church,  for  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  jears,  univerfally, 
allowed  baptifm  by  fprinkling  or  affufion  to  be  fcriptural 
and  valid. 

Had  not  Mr.  Worcefter  have  dealt  fo  largely  in  univerfal 
affirmatives,  he  would  not  have  fo  largely  expofed  himfelf 
to  ievere  reproof  at  every  turn. 

i  he  hiPorlc  truth  is  juft  this,  The  true  church  of  Chrii> 
never,  in  any  age,  allowed  fprinkling  or  affufion  to  be  f;rip- 

F  2 


7©  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejer's 

tural  and  valid  baplifm.  But  Mr.  Worcefter  is,  in  ra<5>, 
fpeaking  of  the  church  of  Antichrift  ;  and  had  he  kept 
hiftoric  truth  on  his  fide,  even  with  refpedt  to  her,  he  would 
have  been  lefs  cenfurable  than  he  now  is.  He,  doubtlefs, 
had  the  hiftory  of  Antichrift  before  him,  and  might  have 
been  as  correft  as  fhe  is  ;  but  even  the  general  corruptions- 
of  Antichrill  were  not  fufficiently  erroneous  for  him,  hut 
he  muft  have  them  always  to  have  been  as  great  as  they 
were  when  they  came  to  their  higheft  degree  of  perfetftnefs. 
Hiftory  informs  us,  that  even  Antichrift  had  not  obtained 
that  degree  of  prefumption,  as  to  fet  afide  the  form  or 
matter  of  gofpel  baptifm,  and  to  change  it  for  fprinkling 
or  affufion,  except  in  cafes  of  ficknefs  or  fome  bodily  in- 
firmity, till  the  year  1305  j  when  Pope  Clement  the  fifth, 
at  the  fecond  fynod  of  Ravenna,  approved,  that  baptifm 
might  be  given,  no  neajjity  cowpeulng,  by  fprinkling.* 

Indeed,  in  Germany,  fo  late  as  the  year  1542,  it  was  not 
generally  known,  if  at  all,  that  any,  even  in  the  church  of 
Antichrift,  practifed  or  allowed  fprinkling,  fave  in  the  cafe 
of  ficknefs  or  other  infirmity,  as  the  following  alfures  us  : — 

^'  Johannes  Bugenhagius  Pomeranus,  when  he  faw,  at 
Hamburgh,  an  infant  brought  to  baptifm,  wrapped  in 
Twaddling  clothes,  and  water  fprinkled  upon  its  head,  w-as 
amazed  ;  for  that,  except  in  the  cafe  of  neceffity,  for  per- 
fons  fick  in  their  beds,  he  had  neither  feen,  nor  heard,  nor 
in  any  hiftory  read,  of  any  fuch  thing.  Whereupon  there 
.  being  a  convocation  of  all  the  minifters,  it  was  a-fKed  of 
Mr.  John  Fritz,  who  had  been  formerly  minifter  at  Lubeck, 
how  baptifm  was  there  adminiftered,  who  anfwered,  ''  In- 
fants were  there,  as  in  all  Germany,  baptized  naked ;  but 
he  was  ignorant  how  that  peculiar  manner  of  baptizing 
had  crept  in  at  Hamburgh  '*  "  At  length  it  was  agreed 
amongft  them,  that  they  Ihould  fend  to  know  the  opinion 
cf  Luther,  and  the  divines  at  Wertemberg,  in  this  matter  j 
which  being  done,  Luther  wrote  back  10  Hamburgh,  that 
this  fpr'inhlin^  was  an  abufe,  which  ought  to  be  removed  ; 
that  thereupon  immerfion  was  reftored  at  Hamburgh. "-f 

It  was  not  till  the  year  1603,  that  fprinkling  obtained  a 
peaceable  footing  in  England  ;  and  even  to  this  day,  unieis 
their  rubrick  has  been  lately  changed,  their  piiefts  are 
obliged  to  dip  the  well  children  in  the  water.^ 

•   Hill.  Eng   Bapt   Vol.  II.  Appendix,  p.  70.  -f   IbiA 

I  Sec  Eug.  CI  urch  Rubrick  on  Baptil'm, 


Tivo  Difcozirfes,  l^c.  71 

Even  when  fprinkling  was  fubftituted  for  baptiini,  m 
cale  of  iicknefs,  yet  it  was  a  doubtful  m-atrer,  at  belt,  whe- 
ther It  V  ere  in  fad  Chrillian  baptilm,  or  would  anfwer  for 
it.  This  is  evioeiU,  from  wh^it  the  piimitive  fathers  in  the 
church  of  Aritichrili  have  faid  up(;n  the  fubje<5t.  Cyprian 
thought  it  might  be  fo  conhdered.*  But  this  fprinkhug  or 
pouring  tor  baptifm,  was  thought  and  judged  io  imperfect, 
that  it  was  not  thought  hiwful  for  any  who  were  baptized 
in  this  wavj  to  be  admitted  to  any  ofBce  in  the  chi.rch. 
See  this  point  ftated  ibmtv.hat  largely  in  Dr.  Gale's  Ke- 
fledions,  from  page  207  to  212. 

What  could  have  induced  Mr.  WorceCter  to  have  framed 
fuch  palpable  miflakes,  the  public  will  judge,  each  one  lor 
himfelf.  How  he,  in  a  land  of  freedom,  where  every  one 
has  liberty  to  fpeak  and  write  the  truth;  could  contradict 
the  Bible,  liubborn  facts,  and  common  ienfe.  as  he  has  done, 
is  a  problem  I  know  not  how  otherv.'ife  to  folve,  than  to 
conlider  him  fo  blinded  by  prejudice  and  party,  that  he 
knew  not  what  he  faid,  ncr  whereof  he  afiirmed.  Indeed, 
he  appears  exceeding  niadagainil  the  church  of  Chrii't,  and 
as  he  proceeds  in  his  pages  his  dirpoiaion  to  mifrepiefent 
her  increafes. 

I  pafs  over  feveral  unfounded  afTertions,  that  I  may  come 
the  focner  to  a  mclf  notorious  flip  of  his  pen,  judgment, 
information,  or  confcience.  He  will  cloak  himfelf  under 
which  he  pleafes ;  but  one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  follow- 
ing afiertion  of  his  is  a  notorious  untruth.  Says  he,  page 
66,  'The  Anabaptlfts,  or  Ai-itipasdobaptiifs,  my  brethren, 
are  a  feet  of  modern  date.'  He  adds  another  fentence, 
which  is  no  lefs  ccntiaiy  from  fiubborn  facts  than  is  the 
preceding.  '  They  (fays  he)  had  their  origin  fome  time 
after  the  reformation  under  Lutlior  and  Calvin  ;  and  their 
origin,  certainly,  though  v.e  would  by  no  m^eans  reproach 
our  more  regular  bretl;ren  of  the  prefent  day  with  it,  was 
but  very  little  calculated  to  imprefs  a  belief  that  the  true 
church  of  God  v.as  only  to  be  found  among  them.' 

The  origin  of  the  Antipaedobaptifts  (or  of  the  Anabap- 
tifts,  as  they  were  ftyled  by  their  enemies  by  v.ay  of  con- 
tempt, as  Chriilians  were  once  called  Nazarenes)  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter  knows  not,  or  he  will  not  acknowledge  ;  lie  therefore 
cannot  inform  us  whether  it  was  honc-urable,  or  the  re'verje, 
•  They  had  their  origin  (he  fays)  fome  time  after  the 
reformation   under  Luther  and  Calvin.'     But   the  fa<ft  is, 

*  Cjprian,  tpt.  Corr,  ad  Fal'iun-.,  apud  Nicer:!,  fub   i,  c?p.  3. 


7  2  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcefler*s 

their  origin  cannot  be  found  by  their  enemies :  for  they 
are  unwiiiing  to  find  it  among  the  difciples  of  John  and  of 
Chrirt,  where  it  realiy  is.  They  can  find  it  no  where  eife. 
But  to  expofe  Mr.  Worceller's  ralhnefs,  relative  to  the 
origin  of  the  Baplitls,  Anabaptifts,  or  Antipssdcbaptifts,  I 
\\-ili  give  the  public  a  fhort  account  of  it,  or  rather  of  the 
PcEdcbaptiils'  entire  uncertainty  or  ignorance  in  this  mat- 
ter, as  ftated  by  Moiheim,  in  his  celebrated  hiftory  of  the 
church  of  x-\ntichrift.  His  words  are,  "The  true  origin  of 
that  fcd^  nvhich  acquired  the  denomination  of  the  Anabapiirts 
by  their  adminifteiing  anew  the  rite  of  baptifm  to  thofe 
who  come  over  to  their  communion,  and  derived  that  of 
Mennonites  from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the 
greateft  part  of  their  prefent  ielicity,  u  hid  in  the  remote 
depths  of  antiquity^  and  is  of  confequence  extremely  dij^cult  to 
he  ajceriained.  This  uncertainty  will  not  appear  furprifing^ 
when  it  is  confidered,  that  this  fed  llarted  up  all  of  a  fudden, 
in  feveral  countries  at  the  fame  point  of  time ^  under  leaders  of 
ditl'erent  talents  and  different  mtentions,  and  at  the  'very 
period  Vv'hen  Ihe  f.rfi  ontefl  of  the  reformers  with  the  Roman 
pontiffs  drew  the  attention  oi  the  world,  and  employed  the 
pens  of  the  learned,  in  fuch  a  manner  as  to  render  all  other 
objtds  and  incidents  aimort  miatters  of  indifference."* 

Mr.  Worceller  will  not  deny  the  tellimony  of  his  brother 
Mi>lheim  ;  if  he  Ihould,  a  multitude  of  others  might  be 
produced,  to  eftablifh,  in  fubftance,  the  fame  fa(5t. 

After  making  feveral  other  affertions,  not  founded  in 
fad,  he  fays,  page  67,  *  Can  we,  then,  believe  that  their 
mode  of  baptifm  only  is  fcriptural  and  valid?  If  fo,  what 
becomes  of  the  £\ithfulnefs  of  God  to  his  promifes  ?' 

Reply.  Did  God  ever  promife  to  continue  the  gofpel 
ordinances  to  the  church  of  Antichriit  ?  Or,  is  he  unfaith- 
ful to  his  promifes,  if  he  have  not  continued  the  true  gofpel 
baptilm,  through  all  generations,  in  the  antichriili.in  church 
of  Rome  ?  The  church  of  Chrift,  as  Mr.  Worceller  ought 
to  know,  and  he  would  recoiled,  were  he  not  darkened  by 
the  traditions  of  men,  hath  been  in  the  v.-ildernefs  twelve 
hundred  and  fixty  years,  during  which  time  we  are  no;:  to 
exped  that  the  hiltory  of  Antichrill  will  give  us  much 
corred  uiformation  rel'peding  her.  Nor  can  we  depend 
upon  their  accounts  being  either  friendly  or  jull.  Belides, 
at  \.\\e  beginnin'j:  of  the  reformation  under  Luther  and 
Calvin,  the  church  left  her  wiidernefs  Ihttion,  and  arafe  at. 

*  Cent.  i6.  fed:    ;,  part  a.  chap.  3. 


Tivo  Difcourfcs^  ^f.  ']i 

from  the  dead,  and  appeared  in  many  places,  ahnnf.  at  the  fame 
pohit  of  time.  And  during  the  retorniaiion,  God  fhewed  to 
both  Luther  and  Calvin,  as  ycu  may  Tee  by  their  writings, 
what  Wiis  the  true  goipel  baptilm  ;  but  neither  they  nor 
their  followers  would  be  faithful  in  the  practice  of  it :  but 
the  church  of  Ch:  ift  hath  both  known  and  obferved  it,  and 
will  flill  do  thus. 

The  public  ovght  to  be  apprized,  that  Mr.  Wcrcefter, 
from  beginning  to  end  of  his  Sermons,  has  been  pleading 
llie  caufe,  and  for  the  church  and  ordinance,  of  Antichrift  ; 
then  will  they  not  be  greatly  furprifed,  to  hear  him  com- 
bine fprinkling  and  many  other  things,  which  he  and  his 
brethren  have  praclifed.  and  then  fay,  *  The  man  who  couKl 
believe  it  (that  is,  that  thefe  things  are,  taken  together,  all 
erroneous,  and  the  fooner  demolilhed  the  better)  would 
find  but  very  little  difficulty  in  believing,  that  the  Bible  is 
a  cunningly  devifed  fable,  &c.-'  And,  fays  he,  page  69, 
*  The  fair  and  invincible  conciunon  then  is,  that  fprinkling 
or  affufion,  the  mode  of  baptifm  praftifed  in  thele  churches, 
is  fcriptural  and  valid.' 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  taken  the  fame  courfe  of  argumenta- 
tion to  fuppcrt  the  validity  of  fprinkling  or  afFufion,  which 
the  mother  of  harlots  has  employed  to  prove  all  her  filthy 
abominations  to  be  fcriptural  and  valid  ;  and  her  ccnclufiou 
is  equally  ftrong,  fcriptural,  and  valid  with  his.  Yes,  and 
the  Bible  too  muil  be  coniidered  as  a  cunningly  devifed 
fable,  if  his  antifcriptural  and  papiftical  notion  of  fprinkling 
be  not  granted,  as  being  both  fcriptural  and  valiu. 

Now  follows  another  of  his  confequences.  *  Accord- 
ingly (fays  he)  there  is  nothing  in  the  fcripturts  againft  it, 
(fprinkling  for  baptifm)  but  much,  did  time  permit,  in 
favour  of  it.'  What  a  pity  he  had  n^-t  taken  a  little  time, 
to  have  mentioned  at  leaft  one  pafTage  in  favour  of  fprink- 
ling :  Till  he  does,  he  will  be  confidered  as  h.iving  done 
the  work  of  the  Lord  deceiifuUy. 

We  have  already  feen,  that  ftubborr-  faffs,  rerorced  07 
hirtorians,  both  ancient  and  modern,  are  to  Mr.  Worcefter 
as  rotten  wood.  He  runs  directly  thrc^ugh  them,,  and  af- 
ferts  jufl:  the  contrary,  without  giving  a  fhow  of  reaibn  why 
he  does  fo.  He  has  alfo  begun  to  treat  the  Bible  in  the 
fume  manner.  But  his  boldnefs  hitlierto  is  quite  out-done, 
by  his  daring  and  prefumptuous  afierticns  in  the  tv/o  para- 
graphs which  next  follow.  Thefe  two  I  fiiall  tranlcribe 
entire,  that  they  may  iland  as  perpetual  monuments  of  his 
tco  great  boldnefs.     Says  hcj 


74  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  VVorceJler^s 

*  V/e  haiie  no  cuidmce  in  the  Jcr'iptureSy  that  in  the  days  of 
Chriji  and  his  apojlles,  any  psrf-m  loas  baptized  by  d'pping^  or 
immerjion.^ 

'  Ajtsr  all  the  laborious  and  oftentatiovs  criticifm  upon  the 
Greek  'vjord  bavtizo^  it  Jlill  remains  a  fady  luell  known  to  all 
who  are  'uerjed  in  the  Greek  language^  that  the  ufe  of  that  ivord 
determines  nothingy  in  refpeB  to  the  particular  mode  in  ivhich 
tuater  is  to  b^  applied  in  baptifm.  It  is,  in  a  'variety  of  injlances^ 
in  the  Greek  fcriptures,  and  in  other  Greek,  turitings^  vfed  to 
fg'dfy  a  luajloing  or  cleanjing^  ivhich  nvas  performed  by  fprink' 
ling  or  pouring  ;  and  may  as  properly  fignify  fprinkling  or  pour- 
ingi  as  plunging  or  dipping.  * 

Upon  theie  words  of  Mr.  Worcefter's,  I  fnall  juft  make 
the  following  obfervations. 

1.  Had  Mr.  Worcefter  been  ignorant  of  the  Greek,  his 
ignorance  might  have  plead  for  him^  that  his  fault  was  but 
the  fn  ot  prejurnptive  ignorance. 

2.  Mr.  Worceiter  having  given  us  no  inilance,  from  any 
writings,  either  facred  or  profane,  in  Vvhich  the  word  baptizo 
is  ufed  in  the  fenfe  in  which  he  tells  us  it  is,  in  a  variety  of 
jnftances,  in  the  Greek  fcriptures,  and  in  other  Greek  writ- 
ings, he  is  therefore  not  entitled  to  the  belief  of  any  peifon. 

3.  Mr.  Worceller  does  not  appear  to  believe  himfelf  j 
for  in  his  note,  on  the  next  page,  he  endeavours  to  parry 
the  charge  of  prefumption  and  falfehood,  which  he  proba- 
bly expeded  would  be   made  out  againd  him,  and  fays, 

*  It  is  important  to  be  remembered,  that  when  words  are  ufed 
in  reference  to  drjlne  injlitutio-as,  and  to  fpiritual  things,  they 
have  an  appropriate  meaning,  which  can  never  be  deter- 
mined fronn  the  mean'.ng  which  they  have  in  common  ufe.* 
A  perfon  who  would  believe  this  papiilical  turn  and  newly 
vamped  deception  of  Mr.  V/orceiler's,  deferves  to  be  igno- 
rant. Let  the  common  people  but  beheve  him  in  this,  and 
he  can  make  them  Papiils  at  once. 

To  give  l)is  obfervation  a  fhow  of  reafon,  he  tells  us,  that 

*  d/ipnon  fignines  a  feaft  or  common  meal,  and  yet  we  think 
it  fuiticient  to  take  a  imall  piece  of  bread  and  a  very  little 
wine.'  But  do  not  the  evapgelifts  Maik  and  Luke  fully 
explain  this  matter,  and  teii  us,  that  what  is  called  the 
Lord^s  flipper  was  at  moil  but  a  fmall  part  of  the  fupper 
which  they  ate  at  the  time  ?  Can  Mr.  Worcefter  ftiow  any 
exception,  with  reipe<5t  to  baptifm,  and  make  it  appear  that 
the  word  is  ufed  in  a  diminutive  fenfe .''  then  would  his 
obfervation  not  be  fo  in  the  face  of  fcripture  and  common 
fenfe,  as  it  now  is.     But  even  then,  it  wculd  be  noUiin^  tQ 


T-ivo  Difcourfe^^  ^c.  y^, 

his  purpofe  ;  for  it  would  make  no  more  than  this — that 
a  partial  immerrion,  cr  very  fmall  part  imnieried,  would  be 
baptilm.  Eelides,  if  v.e  can  know  nothing  of  the  crd'inances^t 
or  of  d'iv':ne  things,  by  the  uie  of  words  in  their  commonly 
received  fenfe,  then  may  the  common  people  be  deceived 
jufl:  ^'hen  and  ivhre  and  fo  much  as  their  defigning  prieCls 
lliall  chocfe.  If  Mr.  Worcerter  think  to  tread  thus  upon 
the  necks  of  his  own  people,  I  pray  the  merciful  Lord  to 
deliver  others  from  fuch  deceptions. 

4.  Mr.  Worceller  cannot  produce  a  pafT^ge,  from  Gen^ 
eTiS  to  Revelation,  in  which  kaptizo  is  uled  for  fprir.kling. 
If  he  will  do  it,  I  agree  to  make  concefllons,  before  faints 
and  hnners,  as  pubiickly  as  he  fhall  prefcrihe.  I  do  not 
fay,  I  will  make  concellions,  if  he  will  aflert  tliat  it  is  thus 
ufed,  but  if  he  will  fhow  it  to  be  thus :  and  till  he  dees,  he 
is,  in  my  judgment,  worthy  to  lie  under  the  imputation  of 
having  deiignedly  or  arrogantly  impofed  upon  all  the  un- 
learned in  his  own  fociety,  and  in  evtry  other,  and  upon 
the  public  generally. 

5.  Mr.  Worceiter  tells  us,  that  hapti%o,  or  to  baptize, 
*  may  as  properly  fjgnify  fprinkling  or  pouring,  as  plunging 
or  dipping  ;'  and  yet  he  adds,  <  It  is  important  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  when  words  are  ufed  in  reference  to  d'rclne  injil- 
tuticns,  and  to  fpirkual  things ^  tliey  have  an  abprcpriate  mean- 
ing, which  can  never  be  determined  from  the  m.eaning 
which  they  have  in  their  cor-^.mon  ufe.'  Here,  according 
to  Mr.  Worcefter,  the  word  Laptlzo  means  any  thing  which 
either  he  or  his  opponents  choofe,  and  from  its  meaning 
nothing  can  be  determined  by  either.  This  very  exactly 
comports  with  what  fome  of  the  blind  leaders  are  bold 
enough  to  fay,  Ihat  cutmvon  people  can  never  knoiv  for  them- 
fdves  lukat  baptifm  is^  but  rnuji  belicve  it  to  be  ivhat  their  min- 
ijhrs  tell  thtin. 

Nor  has  he  given  the  public  any  better  argument  than 
this,  to  prove  that  the  human  invention  cf  fprinkling  is  the 
divine  inftitution  of  baptifm.  His  argument  is  this — *  The 
Paedobaptiil:,  or,  more  ftricftly  fpeai<i:i2-,  the  Fsedorantift 
•  denomination,  is  the  vifible- church  of  Chrift.  The  vifible 
church  of  Chrift  hath  been  eifentially  correal  in  her  notions 
of  the  gc^fpel  byptifm,  and  Jije  h.'ith  htld  fprinkiin'g  to  be 
fcriptural  and  valid  baptilm  ;  therefore  fprinkling  is  the 
true  gofpel  baptifm.'  .Tuft  fo  his  hoiinefs  the  pope  argues — • 
**  The  holy  catholic  church  of  Rome  is  the  true  vifible 
gofpel  church.  The  true  vifible  gofpel  church  hath  ever 
had  juft  notions  of  the  facrament  of  the  fupper  ;  and  Jhe 


•76  ■  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  IVcrcejhr^s 

hath  for  many  hundred  years  believed,  that  the  bread  and 
wine,  after  the  conitcration  of  the  prieft,  are  chtinged  into 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Chrift  :  therefore  the  dodrine 
of  tranfubilantiation  is  fcriptural  and  valid.  So  are,  for 
the  fame  reafons,  the  dodrines  of  purgatory,  extreme  unc- 
tion, praying  to  the  virgin  Jtlary  and  to  images,  counting 
of  beads,  and  all  the  other  fripperies  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  fcriptural  and  valid."  Thus  we  fee  that  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter*s  argument  and  the  pope's  are  juft  the  fame,  and 
ufed  to  eitablitn  the  fame  point — that  man's  inventions  are 
God's  inilitutions. 

Mr.  Worceiter  denies  that  the  pope's  church  is  the  vifible 
church  of  Chrift,  and  fo  the  pope's  argument  is  fpoiled. 
V>^e  equally  deny,  that  Mr.  Worcefier's  unbaptized  church 
is  the  viiible  church  of  ChriR,  his  argument  therefore  ^alls 
to  the  ground  equally  as  did  the  pcjpe's. 

In  pages  69,  70,  Mr.  Worccller  hns  a  note,  which 
deferves  attention.  His  Vv'ords  are,  *  It  has  been  a  com- 
mon thing  with  the  Antipx:dobaptifts,  to  fpeak  very  dif- 
refpeiftfully  of  learning  and  learned  men  ;  but  of  late,  one 
can  baldly  meet  with  an  Antijiasdcbaptift,  who  is  not 
prepared  to  talk  fo  fluently  and  fo  learnedly  of  the  meaning 
•f  Greek  and  Latin  words,  as  aimoft  to  amaze  one.  Even 
the  author  of  Seven  Sermons,  on  the  mode  and  fubjecls  of 
baptjfm,  "  defires  to  thank  God  that  he  knows  the  Greek 
as  well  as  any  man  ;"  and  has  two  or  three  fermors  almcft 
wholly  upon  the  meaning  of  a  few  Greek  and  Latin  words. 
On  this  fubje(5l,  however,  though  from  his  manner  one 
might  be  led  to  fuppofe  it  had  never  before  been  attended 
to,  he  has  nothing  materially  new  :  nothing  but  what  was 
furnifhed  to  his  hands  by  Dr.  Gill,  and  other  Anabaptift 
writers ;  and  nothing  but  what  has  been  repeatedly  and 
unanfwerably  anfwered.  He  aiferts  much,  but  proves  very 
little  ;  and  yet,  with  an  authoritive  air,  but  little  becoming 
a  Chriftian  minifter,  he  requires  us  all  to  fubmit  to  his 
affertions,  on  pain  of  beir.g  placed  at  the  ban  of  the  kingdom 
ofChiiaV 

Upon  this  part  of  his  note  (and  more  of  it  will  be  pro. 
duced  foon)  the  following  remarks  niay  merit  fome  at- 
tention. 

I.  If  learning  have  been  generally  mifufed  hy  learned 
men,  as  it  has  by  Mr.  Worceiter,  to  mifrepreicnt  the  ckar- 
adlers  and  fentim^ents  of  the  .'intipxdobaptith,  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at,  if  they  have  fpoken  dilrefpeftfully  c-f  both. 


Two  Difcsurfes^  "^c,  77 

2.  As  to  the  contemptuous  manner  in  which  he  fpenks 
of  me,  it  is  but  a  fmall  thing,  as  it  lefpccls  m,e  perfonally  ; 
but  as  to  his  merit  or  demerit,  in  pubhfhtng  an  hearfay 
expreffion,  intentionally  to  my  dil  ad  vantage,  the  public 
will  judge.  Notwithlianding  his  cjfertion  and  re-ajjertion^ 
that  1  have  made  the  expreffion  fomeivhere^  and  before 
fome  perfons,  whom  Solomon  would  call  tale-bearers,  I 
ftill  confider  it  a  flander,  and  the  accufation  as  falle  as  the 
mann^-  of  his  publilliing  it  was  illiberal.  Had  I  have 
made  the  expreffion,  would  any  man,  had  he  a  good  caufe 
to  defend,  have  employed  fuch  kind  of  defence  ?  No  man, 
who  fuitably  regards  his  own  reputation,  will,  in  a  religious 
controverfy,  fcek  the  Jupport  of  his  caufe  by  leifening,  in  any 
uncivil  method,  the  character  of  his  opponent.  Should  I 
lower  tbe  character  of  Mr.  Worcefter,  it  ihail  be  becaufe  I 
am  compelled  to  it,  by  fetting  in  plain  view  how  he  has 
expofed  himfelf.  I  will  not  mention  what  I  know  of  the 
man,  nor  will  I  utter  what  fam.e  hath  reported  ;  my  bufi- 
nefs  with  him,  before  the  public,  is  upon  what  he  hath 
committed  to  the  infpevflion  of  the  vrhole. 

What  advantage  he  could  pupofe  to  himfelf,  or  to  his 
denomination,  by  telling  the  public,  that  my  Sennons  con- 
tained nothing  materially  new,  and  that  what  I  had  faid 
v.'as  furnilhed  to  my  hand  by  Dr.  Gill  and  others,  is  diffi- 
cult to  afcertain,  unlefs  it  were  to  make  me  appear  as  fmall 
as  he  could,  that  my  opponents  might  confider  their  ta/k 
to  be  eafy,  and  the  productions  of  my  pen  to  be  fcarce 
worth  reading.  But  whether  my  Sermons  be  great  or 
/wi?//,  whether  they  contain  things  tie'w  or  old,  wheiher  tlie 
fubjeft  matter  of  them  were  furnilhed  to  my  hand  by  Dr. 
■Gill  (a  page  of  whofe  writings  I  had  then  never  feen  upon 
the  fubjecl)  or  by  any  other  perfon,  is  not  the  point.  The 
queftion  of  importance  is.  Do  they  contain  ftubborn  facts, 
fo  handled  by  common  fenfe  as  to  expofe  the  Psdobaptiil 
errors,  by  the  exhibition  of  plain  truth  ? 

3.  What  he  tells  the  public,  of  my  requiring  perfons  to 
believe  what  my  Sermons  contain,  upon  pain  of  being 
placed  at  the  ban  (that  is,  the  curfe,  or  execration)  of  the 
kingdom  of  Chrift,  is  equally '  unfounded  with  his  other 
affertions. 

We  will  new  hear  fom-e  more  of  his  note.  Says  he, 
*  The  word  lapnzo,  as  conceded  on  .all  hands,  fignifies  to 
<ivafi,*  Here  he  rniftakes  again.  It  is  not,  by  any  means, 
conceded,  that  hatt't%o  fignifies  to  wajh^  iu  the  common 


B  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worccfter'j 


acceptation  of  that  word.  It  fignifies  to  wafh  in  a  fpecific 
fenfe  ;  to  wafli  by  immerfion,  dipping,  or  putting  the  thing 
in  water  :  this  is  the  only  fenle  in  which  we  concede  that 
baptizo  fignifies  to  wafh.  Mr.  Worcefter  fubjoins,  *  If  it  be 
faid,  that  fprinkling  or  affufion  is  not  walhing ;  it  may 
ahb,  with  equal  pertinency,  be  faid,  that  dipping  is  not 
walhing.*  Here  is  another  of  his  miftakes :  for  dipping  is, 
in  the  Bible,  in  the  cafe  of  Naaman,  put  for  a  fpecific  kind 
of  wafliing  ;  in  one  inftance  it  is  called  wafhing,  and  in 
another  the  iame  thing  is  called  dipping.  But,  if  my 
recollevSlion  ferves  me,  fprinkling  is  never  called  wafh- 
ing ;  never  once  fo  called,  from  Genefis  to  Revelation : 
and  all  he  fays  about  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  merely  to 
darken  counfel  by  words  without  knowledge. 

Again,  fays  he,  *  If  it  be  faid,  that  dipping  is  one  mode 
in  which  wafhing  is  peiformed  ;  it  may,  in  rejoinder,  be 
faid,  fo  alfo  is  fprinkling  or  affufion  one  mode  in  which 
wafhing  is  peiformed  ;  and  that  too,  the  mode  in  which 
the  fcriptures  moft  commonly  reprefent  ceremonial  and 
fpirilual  wafnings.*  But  where  do  the  fcriptures  fay  any 
fuch  thine  ?  Where  do  they  fo  much  as  once  mention  that 
fprinkling  is  ceremonial  or  fpiritual  wafliing,  or  any  other 
kind  of  wafliing  ?  Mr.  Worcefter's  fide  muft,  indeed,  be 
hard  piefTed,  when,  with  all  his  labour,  he  cannot  find  fo 
much  as  a  fentence  of  fcripture,  to  help  him  out  of  his 
increafing  difficulty. 

In  the  next  paragraph,  he  very  incautioufly  involves 
hirafelf  in  a  double  difficulty,  from  which  he  will  not  be 
able  to  extricate  himfelf. 

*  It  is  important  (fliys  he)  to  be  remembered,  that  when 
words  are  ufed  in  reference  to  {iiv'me  irijtitut/onsy  and  to  Jpir"' 
itiiai  thiri'TSj  they  have  an  appropriate  meaning,  which  can 
never  be  determined  from,  the  meaning  which  they  have  in 
their  common  ufi'     Here  tv,o  things  are  highly  noticeable. 

I.  He  implicitly  grants,  with  relation  to  bapti%o-,  what 
we  affirm  to  be  true,  that  the  commiOn  ufe,  the  plain  fenfe,  ^ 
of  it,  is  to  immerfe ;  otherwife,  it  would  not  be  important 
to  his  purpole  for  us  to  remember,  *  that  when  words  are 
ufed  in  reference  to  divine  inftitutions,  they  have  an  appro- 
priate weaning^  whicli  can  never  be  determined  from  the 
meaning  which  they  have  in  tlieir  common  ufe.*  For  if  bap- 
fizoy  in  its  common  ufe,  ever  mean  to  fprinkle  or  alfufe, 
whi^h  Mr.  Worcefler  tells  us,,  in  the  preceding  page,  it  may 
3.Z  properly  fignify,  as  to  plunge  or  dip,  then,  if  to  fprinkle 


Two  Difcourfa^  Isfc,  79 

fcr  to  pour  be  baptiim,  the  word  has  no  appropriate 
meaiung  w/jen  ufed  in  reference  to  that  divine  iullitution. 
But,  lays  he,  *  It  is  iniportant  to  remember,  that  it  has  an 
appropriate  meaning  when  ufed  in  reference  to  a  divine 
inllitution  ;'  therefore,  in  its  common  ufe  it  can  have  no 
fach  meaning  as  to  fprinkle  or  pour. 

2.  For  more  than  fevcnteen  hundred  years,  both  the 
learned  and  the  unlearned  have,  generally,  been  enveloped 
in  neceljcjry  ignorance,  as  to  what  the  divine  inlliiution  ot 
bapLifra  is  ;  for  few,  if  any,  ever  knew,  till  Mr.  Worcefter 
gave  th.e  impariant  information^  tliat  they  were  not  to  unuer- 
liand  baptl%o,  when  ufed  with  reference  to  baptifm,  in  tlie 
fame  fenfe  in  which  it  was  commonly  ufed.  The  Lord 
hath  no  where  given  us  this  important  information  ;  and 
had  it  not  been  lor  Mr.  Worcefter,  we  had  ftill  gone  on  in 
our  native  and  neceiTary  ignorance.  What  will  Chriftians 
tlii.ik  and  fay  of  this  matter  ?  Reader,  I  pray  thee  confider 
v.-ifely  of  this.  Hath  the  wife,  the  compaffionate  Lord 
Jefus  com.manded  all  who  love  him  to  be  baptized,  and 
in  the  command,  and  in  the  circum fiances  of  the  command, 
hath  given  them  no  information,  but  what  he  intended  they 
fhould  obferve,  what  the  common  fenle  of  the  word  im- 
ported, v.hile,  at  the  i^ime  time,  he  had  an  appropriate 
fecret  meaning  to  it  ?  Does  Mr.  Worceller  think  to  change 
the  laws  of  Chrift,  at  this  late  period  of  the  world  ?  Will 
Chriilians  admit  fuch  a  grofs  impofuion,  not  merely  upon 
the  Bible  and  upon  common  fenfe,  but  upon  the  Lord  of 
both  ?  Shall  the  world  be  always  impofed  upon  by  fuch 
bare-faced  wickednefs  i*  He  virtually  accufes  the  Chriftian 
Lawgiver  v.-ith  duplicity  and  deception.  The  Lord  hath 
commanded  a  divine  inftitution,  yet  in  the  command  hath 
ufed  words  in  an  appropriate  fenfe,  and  yet  hath  given  no 
intimation  of  their  being  thus  ufed  ;  and  thus  he  hath  im- 
pofed upon  his  poor  followers,  or  elfe  Mr.  Woiceifer  hath 
manifeftly  accufed,  falfely,  the  Holy  One  of  Ifrael.  Will 
Mr.  Worcerter  blufti  and  condemn  himfelf,  for  thus  abufmg 
tiie  Chriil  of  God  ?  or  will  he  ftiil  juftify  himfelf,  and  fay, 
that  the  Son  of  God,  who  taught  man's  tongue  to  fpeak, 
and  gave  undenlanding  to  the  fons  of  men,  hath,  in  the 
chara>fter  of  Chridian  Lawgiver,  ufed  words  in  fuch  an 
appropriate  fenfe,  that  both  the  learned  and  the  rude,  the 
faint  and  the  finner,  were  all  of  them  not  only  equally  liable 
to  miftake  him,  but  under  a  natural  necelTity  to  do  fo  ?  For 
Jefus  Chriif  haih  not,  in  any  part  of  his  law  or  gcfpel,  told 


8o  Letters  en  Rev.  S.  Worcejier^s 

lis  what  this  appropriate  fenfe  is,  in  which  he  would  hare 
us  imderltand  the  word  baptixo^  or  to  baptize.  Nor  has  he 
fo  revealed  this  to  Mr.  Worcefter,  that  he  is  able  to  inform 
us  with  certainty  what  it  is  ;  at  moft,  he  can,  or  does,  tell 
us  nothing  more  than  this — It  is  a  very  fmall  or  little  im- 
merfion. 

May  the  longfuiFering  Redeemer  kindly  rebuke  and 
gracioufiy  forgive  the  prefumption  of  the  man,  and  deliver 
his  own  people  from  fuch  grofs  impofitions ! 

I  will  prefent  the  public  with  but  one  more  quotation 
from  the  note  under  confideration,  and  it  is  this,  *  Should 
any  zealous  Chriftians  (fays  he)  think  it  necefTary  to  make 
literally  a  feaR,  or  a  full  meal,  at  the  Lord's  table ;  they 
might,  v/ith  as  much  propriety,  and  as  much  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  fpirit,  feparatc  themfelves  from  the  communion  of  thofe 
who  only  partake  of  a  little  bread  and  wine,  and  charge 
them  with  refufmg  to  keep  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord  ;  as 
thofe,  who  think  it  neceifary  to  be  plunged  all  over  in 
water,  win  feparate  themfelves  from  the  communion  of 
thofe  who  have  only  been  baptized  by  fprinkling,  and 
charge  them  with  not  keeping  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord.' 

This  is  another  of  his  rnifreprefentationa  :  for, 

1.  The  partaking  of  a  little  bread  and  wine,  is  the  plain, 
literal  import  of  the  ordinance,  or  of  the  elements  and  cele- 
bration of  it ;  as  is  manifeft  in  the  very  inftitution  of  it. 
It  was  while  they  were  eating  and  drinking,  or  after  they 
had  for  a  while  been  eating  and  drinking,  our  Lord  took 
bread  and  wine,  and  gave  them  to  his  difciples,  as  a  com- 
memorative ordinance.     But, 

2.  It  is  not  thus  in  the  ordinance  of  baptifm.  There  is 
no  fuch  intimation,  that  a  very  fmall  or  partial  immerfion 
is,  was,  or  ever  fliall  be,  gofpel  baptifm.  And  as  for 
fprinkling,  man's  fubllitute  for  gofpel  baptifm,  there  is 
nothing  in  it  w^hich  has  any  fimilarity  to  the  firft  gofpel 
ordinance.  There  is,  therefore,  no  likenefs  in  the  two 
cafes  which  he  has  put :  one  is  according  to  the  command- 
ment and  pattern  given,  and  the  other  is  quite  a  different 
thing.  God's  people  will  one  day  fee  how  their  leaders 
caufe  them  to  err. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  am,  for  defending  the  truth,  r}  e 
reproach  of  many. 


T-juG  Difcourjh,  "ijfc.  8i 

We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jiubborn  fads,  and  ti 
common  fenfc. 


L  E  T  T  E  Pv      IX. 

MEN,   BRETHREN,   AND   FATHERS, 

X  OU  are,  no  doubt,  either  tired  of  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter's  miftakes  and  mifreprelentations,  or  of  my  correc- 
tions of  his  departures  from  fcripture  truth,  from  hiftoric 
fa6ts>  and  from  common  fenfe.  But,  as  he  has  impofed 
upon  your  credulity,  and  infuked  your  want  of  claffic 
knowledge  and  hiftoric  information,  you  will  readily  bear 
with  me  a  little,  whilft  I  endeavour  to  remove  the  blinds 
and  uncover  the  deceptions  which  have  kept  you  from 
feeing  the  order  and  ordinances  cf  the  church  of  the  Son 
of  God. 

We  fhall,  for  a  few  minutes,  attend  upon  Mr.  Worcefter, 
where  he  is  profelfedly  giving  us  the  fcripture  account  of 
gofpel  baptifm. 

In  page  70,  he  introduces  the  fubject  thus  :  *  In  two  or 
three  inftances  we  read,  (fays  he)  indeed,  of  their  going 
down  into  the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water  ;  but 
the  original  particles,  rendered  in  thefe  inftances,  into  and 
out  ofi  are  as  properly,  and  much  more  commonly,  rendered 
fimply  to  and /row.*  But,  I  reply,  they  are  never  rendered 
to  and  from.  v%hen  they  refer  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  ; 
nor  eould  they  be  properly  ever  thus  rendered.  Accoi'd= 
ingly,  the  tranflators  of^the  Bible  have  never,  in  a  fniglc 
inftance,  adopted  Mr.  Worcefter's  tranflation  of  them,  when 
the  ordinance  was  in  queftion.  Nor  could  they  with  pro- 
priety have  ever  thus  rendered  them  ;  which  tliey  would 
have  done,  if  it  had  been  poffible,  confiftent  with  their 
folemn  engagement  to  fidelity  :  for  it  was  in  the  reign  of 
king  James,  under  whofe  patronage  they  tranllatcd  the 
Bible,  that  the  human  rite  of  fprinkhng  obtained  public 
countenance  in  England,  as  a  common  fubftilute  for  gofpel 
baptifm.  Thefe  tranflators  could  not  have  failed  to  have 
admitted  Mr.  Worcefter's  tranflation,  had  the  connexion 
have  juftified  fuch  a  meafure  :  but  in  no  inftance  have  thej* 
done  thus.     They  knew  and  pra<ftifed  beiler,  than  to  per^ 

G  2 


82  Letters  en  Rt-j.  S.  Worcejler" s 

vert  the  fcriptures  by  fuch  a  tranllatio}!  ;  and  Mr.  Worcei- 
ter  ought  to  know  better,  or  fay  leis,  for  God  will  not 
always  fufrer  his  people  to  be  thus  blindly  led. 

*  But  (lliys  he)  it  is  particularly  to  be  remembered,  that 
when  they  went  down  to  the  \^ater,  or  into  the  water,  it  is 
not  in  a  fingle  ir.lcance  faid  how  they  were  there  baptized, 
whether  by  dipping  or  by  iprini^iing.' 

Rqny.  Here  let  common  lenfe  fpeak,  and  iay>  it  the  fol- 
lowing inftances  do  not  exprefs  the  manner  how.  They 
were  all  baptized  of  him  (John)  in  the  river  of  Jordan. 
Jefus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of 
John  IN  Jordan.  And  Jlratght'way  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,  &c.  Buried  with  Chrift  in  baptifm.  Planted  in  bap- 
tifm.  Buried  by  baptifm..  Raifed  with  Chrift  in  baptifm. 
Having  our  hod'ies  tvcJJjtd  with  pure  water,  &c.*  Is  it  to 
be  particularly  remembered,  that  not  in  a  fmgle  inftance, 
when  they  went  down  to  the  water,  or  into  the  water,  *  it 
is  not  faid  kotv  they  were  there  baptized,  whether  by  dip- 
ping or  by  fprinkling  V  It  ought,  indeed,  to  be  particularly 
known,  and  then  reinembeied,  that  not  in  a  fmgle  inftance, 
in  ail  the  Bible,  is  fprinkling  fo  much  as  mentioned  or  inti- 
maied  to  be  the  matter  or  mode  of  gofpel  baptifm.  In 
every  hngle  inftance,  where  any  direct  or  circumftantial 
information  is  c-iven  of  the  manner  how,  in  baptifm,  it 
implies  immerfi.'.n,  and  nothing  fhort  of  it.  Befides,  the 
very  word  itfeJf,  in  every  inftance,  tells  us,  in  its  plain, 
literal,  and  comm^on  fenfe,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  implicitly 
allows,  that  the  m.anner  hoiu,  in  baptifm,  was  immtrjion. 

Mr.  Worcefter  tells  us,  in  his  note,  page  71,  that  '  Chrift's 
baptifm  was  dehgned  regularly  to  introduce  him  into  his. 
prieftly  oitice,  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes.'  Where  did 
Mr.  Worcefter  obtain  this  information  ?  Not  in  the  Bible, 
for  that  contradids  it :  for,  fays  the  apoftle  to  the  Hebrews, 
chap.  vii.  Chrift  "  fhould  not  be  called  after  the  order  of 
Aaron.  For  the  prlejihocd  being  c\anged^  there  is  made  of 
nccejfity  a  change  of  the  law. — CHir  Lord  fprang  out  of  Juda  ; 
of  v/hich  tribe  Moles  fpake  nothing  concerning  priefthood." 
BefiJes,  fays  the  apoftle,  our  Lord  "  is  made  [prieft]  not 
after  the  Ui'vj  of  a  carnal  commandment^  but  aftej  the  poiver 
of  .r,i  endiefs  life.  For  he  teftifieth.  Thou  art  a  prieft  for- 
ever, after  the  order  of  Melchfedec.*^  But  in  contradiiftion 
to  the  word  of  God,  Mr.  Worcefter,  that  he  might  deprive 

*  Matt.  iii.  6.  Mark  i.  ^,  9,  ic  Rem.  vi  4,  5    Col.  il  J  2.  Keb.  x,  zz. 


Two  DifcGurfes^  ^c,        -  '^'i^ 

Chrlftians  of  the  example  of  their  Lord  in  baptifm,  would, 
Vvithout  a  word  of  fcriptiire  authority,  and  contrary  from 
eiiery  commandment  in  the  Mofaic  laiu  oi prtefihoody  introduce 
Chrilt  into  his  prieftly  office  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes. 
Moles  knew  nothing  about  this  notion  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  ; 
nor  would  he  or  his  brethren  ever  have  invented  it,  had 
they  not  found  difficulty  in  oppofmg  the  practice  of  the 
baptized  church. 

We  will  novv  hear  his  conclufion,  as  to  the  fcripture 
account  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  and  his  evidence,  as  he 
hath  fummed  it  up,  pages  72,  73.  *  Is  it  not  plain  (fays 
he)  that  fprinkling  is  a  mode  much  more  properly  fignifi- 
cant  than  dipping  ?  In  reference  to  the  application  of  the 
blood  of  Chrid,  we  never  read  of  dipping  or  immerfing, 
but  conftantly  oi-  fprinkling  or  pouring.^  Not  fo  :  for,  Rev. 
i.  5.  we  read  cf  Jems  Chrift,  "  who  loved  us,  and  luafJjed 
us  from  our  fms  in  his  own  blood.^*  But  he  adds  feveral 
paifages  of  fcripture,  which  are  nothing  to  his  purpofe,  for 
they  fay  nothing  of  baptifm  :  hov/ever,  the  reader  fhall 
have  fet  before  him  the  paifages  mentioned.  They  are 
thefe  : — "  Ye  are  come  to  the  blood  of  fprinkling.  And 
fprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Chriif.  I  will"  pour  out  my 
Spirit  upon  all  iiefn.  I  will  fprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  ihali  be  clean.  S»  Ihall  he  fprinkle  many  nations." 
*  Such  (fays  he)  are  the  uniform  reprefentations  of  fcrip- 
ture.' What  does  he  here  intend  ?  If  his  meaning  be,  what 
his  readers  would  naturally  underfiand,  by  his  ftatemient  of 
the  matter,  that  *  fuch  are  the  uniform  reprefentations  of 
fcripture,'  when  the  ordinance  of  baptrfm  is  intended  or 
fpoken  of,  then  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  what  he 
fays,  but  juft  the  reverfe  is  true  ;  lor  there  is  not  one  fuch 
reprefentation  in  all  the  Bible,  when  the  gofpel  ordinance 
cf  baptifm  is  mentioned.  I  v»ti1  not  fay  that  Mr.  Worcefter 
meant  to  deceive  and  impofe  upon  the  public,  but  this  I 
will  fay,  Had  this  been  his  intention,  his  writings  could 
not  have  appeared  more  like  it. 

His  next  itep  is^  to  reafon  with  his  people  upon  propriety 
and  decency^  fuppofed  order  and  folemnity,  the  very  mother  of 
this  papifiical  abomination^  of  \S\\s  fprinkling  fulfil tute  for  gofpel 
baptifm.  Mr.  Worcefter  having  laboured,  and  labQured  in 
i}ain,  to  find  one  word  f.f  God,  which  mei-rions  fprinkling 
for  the  ordir.ance  of  baptifm,  he  would  noiv  perfuade  his 
people  and  the  public  to  give  their  aifent  to  it  upon  the 
fcore  of  propriety  and  decency,  or  upon  account  of  ord^r  and 


84  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Worce^er's 

fohnmlty.  "What  crooked  paths  are  trodden  by  the  blind 
leaders  of  the  bhnd  !  Once  was  I,  as  to  Infant  baptlfm,  in 
this  fame  crooked  path;  but,  by  the  grace  of  God,  1  am 
ivkat  I  am. 

Mr.  Worcefter,  in  his  note,  page  73,  tells  u?,  <  The  quef- 
tlon  properly  between  us  is  not  this,  whether  any  were 
baptized,  in  the  days  of  Chriil  and  his  apcfties,  by  Immer- 
ficn  or  dipping  ;  but  It  is  preclfely  this,  whether  immerficn 
or  dipping  be  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptifm.*  He  has 
defined  the  queftion  well,  and  for  a  full  anfwer,  fee  my 
Letters  to  Mr.  Auftln.  However,  I  will  give  a  fliort  anfwer 
here,  and  an  anfwer  too,  which  neither  Mr.  Worcefter  nor 
his  brethren  have  been  or  ever  will  be  able  to  refute.  The 
anfwer  is  this, — The  Bible  mode  of  baptifm  is  the  only 
valid  mode.  The  Bible  mxode,  that  which  Chrift  com- 
manded, and  that  which  the  apoftles  pradlfed,  was  Immer- 
fion,  and  immerfion  only,  as  is  evident  from  this  plain 
reafon — Immerfion  is  the  plain,  literal,  and  common  i^vS^ 
cf  the  comimand,  and  the  plain,  literal,  ai:d  common  fenfe 
of  the  hiftory  given  of  the  apoftles'  pra<fllce  Is  alfo  imimer- 
fion  ;  and  there  Is  no  different  or  (^ppofite  fenfe  to  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word,  or  to  the  pra<fllce  of  the  apoRles. 
But,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  *  if  in  the  mod  extreme  cafes,  fuch 
as  thofe  of  sickness  and  imprifonnrtnty  baptifm  might  be  ad- 
mlnillered  by  fprlnkling  or  affufion,  then  immerfion  Is  not 
elfentlal  to  the  ordinance.*  I  anfwer.  Certainly,  If  there 
be  any  poffible  cafe,  In  which  gofpel  baptifm  m^ay  be  ad- 
miniftered  in  any  way  otherwife  than  by  immerfion,  then 
immerficn  is  not  effential  to  the  ordinance  ;  but  this  is  the 
very  thing  to  be  proved.  The  Bible,  by  neither  precept, 
example,  nor  Implication,  gives  any  liberty  for  any  fuch 
baptifm.  1  he  Bible  knows  nothing  of  fick-bed  baptiftn, 
nor  of  imprlfoned  baptifm,  nor  of  baptifm  by  fprinkling  or 
iiffufion. 

After  Mr.  Worcefter  had  faid  very  many  thing;,  with 
very  little  candour,  and  with  lefs  regard  to  veracity  and 
facts,  he  endeavours,  page  74,  to  load  the  Anabaptlfts,  as 
he  terms  them,  with  reproach,  and  to  cover  them  with 
contempt,  by  charging  to  their  account  feveral  fuperfti- 
tious  pra(flices  which  took  place  more  than  a  thoufand  years 
before  he  will  allow  them  even  an  exigence.  Says  he, 
page  66,  *  The  Anabaptlfts,  my  brethren,  are  a  feci  of 
modern  date  ;  they  had  their  origin  fome  time  after  the 
reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin.'     But  now,  page 


T^o  Difcourfes^  Uc,  %^ 

74,  to  calumniate  the  poor  Anabaptiils,  he  charges  to  their 
reproach  whai  he  lays  was  pradtiied  by  ancient  Chriftians. 
YLq  tells  us,  *  When  they  were  baptized  by  immerfionj  they 
■were  all  baptized  naked,  they  were  iinmeried  three  times, 
they  were  figned  with  the  crofs,  and  on  coming  o^it  of  the 
water  they  were  clothed  in  white  lobes,  &c.  Let  it  not  be 
faid  (fays  he)  that  this  was  the  manner  of  popifli  immer- 
fions  ;  it  was  the  manner  of  the  carlieft  immerfions  of 
which  we  have  any  account.' 

Now  this  whole  matter,  or  the  fubftance  of  it,  as  he  has 
ftated  it,  is  falfe,  from  beginning  to  end  of  it.*  Y\v:  the 
fingularity  of  it  is,  that  he  fhould  lay  thefe  fuperftitious 
pra(ftices  to  the  reproach  of  the  Anabaptitis,  who  had  not 
(if  Mr.  Worcefier  told  the  truth  to  his  brethren;  any  exiil- 
ence  till  more  than  a  thoufand  years  after  the  introduction 
of  thefe  fuperftitions.  Beiides,  what  renders  it  ftill  more 
fmgular  is,  the  Anabaptifts,  as  he  calls  them,  have  never 
praiflifed  or  approved  of  the  errors  with  which  he  reviles 
them  ;  but  his  own  denomination  have  for  ages,  or  in  dif- 
ferent ages,  pradtifed  the  whole  of  them,  as  I  am  ready  to 
fhow  at  large,  if  he  and  his  brethren  wifli  me  to.  It  is  to 
be  remiemhered,  that  my  prcpofal  is,  to  prove  that  the 
P^dobaptifts  are  chargeable  with,  and  have  praftifed,  all 
the  fuperftitious  fripperies  which  Mr.  Worcefter  unright- 
eoufly  and  iUiberally  lays  to  the  reproach  of  the  Anabap- 
tifts. It  is  not  enough  for  Mr.  Worcefter  to  reproach  the 
gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm,  by  calling  it  plunging  and 
dipping  ;  and  to  give  the  baptized  church  an  ill  name, 
which  never  anfwered  to  their  public  fentiment,  any  farther 
than  this — when  any,  who  had  not  received  gofpel  believ- 
ers' baptifm,  wifhed  to  be  of  their  comxmunion,  they  ad- 
miniftered  it  to  him.  Yes,  it  is  not  enough  for  him  to  do 
all  this,  and  to  charge  to  the  account  of  the  baptized  church 
all  the  evils  v.  hich  he  can  fee  or  hear  of  them  ;  but  in 
addition,  he  muft  heap  upon  them,  the  fuperftitions  of  his 
own  profefTed  denomination,  v/hich  took  place  hundreds  of 
years  bcfoie  there  was,  according  to  his  own  affertions,  fo 
much  as  one  fociety  cf  Baptlfts,  or,  as  he  calls  them.,  Ana- 
baptifts, in  the  world.  A  man  vrho  can  knowingly,  delib- 
erately, and  wih^ully,  be  guilty  of  fuch  managemxcnt,  to 
blind  his  C'.vn  people,  to  keep  truth  out  of  fight,  and  to 

*  ""ee  Booth's  Pc-cdo.  Vol  II  p  icg.  Mofheim,  Vcl.  I  p  200,388. 
Vel  II.  ctnt  4.     Booth,  Vol  I.  p.  258,  :63.  265,  &c. 


^6  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Wcrcejfer's 

retain  the  public  mind  in  the  belief  of  fome  of  the  fuperfti- 
lions  of  popery,  is  not  deferving  of  very  high  reputation, 
among  the  faithful,  though  dcfpifed,  followers*of  the  Lamb. 

Mr.  Worcefler's  exhortation,  page  74 — 76,  to  parental 
faiihfulnefs,  would  be  in  meafure  pleafing,  were  it  not  that 
it  is  founded  in  error,  and  brought  to  fupport  it.  He 
reminds  parents  of  their  duty,  *  to  bear  their  children  on 
their  hearts  at  the  throne  of  grace,  praying  with  them  and 
for  them  ;  faithfully  to  inftrucl  them,  as  they  become  capa- 
ble of  receiving  inftrudion,  in  the  doclrines  and  precepts  of 
the  gofpel,'  &c.  All  this  is  good;  and  it  is  greatly  to  le 
defired,  that  Chriftians,  of  whatever  name,  were  more  faithful 
in  bringing  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord.  But  even  where  he  enforces  a  gofpel  duty, 
he  does  it  from  a  confideration  of  his  erroneous  principles, 
and  not  by  goi'pel  injunctions  or  motives.  He  teils  the 
parents  of  their  baptlxed  children^  the  children  of  the  covenant^ 
tj:e  children  of  the  churchy  the  covenant  'vonvs  of  parents 
believingly  to  trujl  in  the  promife  of  God  refpe£fing  their  children^ 
&ic.  Now,  we  find  not  a  word  of  all  this  in  the  gofpel, 
v/ith  relation  to  baptized  unbelieving  children. 

In  pages  78,  79,  Mr.  Worceiler  has  feveral  things,  which 
deferve  to  be  repeated  in  the  public  hearing,  and  to  be 
noticed  by  every  perfon  concerned  in  the  prefent  contro- 
verfy.  Says  he,  '  God  forbid,  my  brethren,  that  in  refpedt 
to  any  denomination  or  fe(5l  of  profeffing  Chriftians,  we 
fliould  ever  difplay  any  thi»g  like  a  fpirit  of  perfecution,  or 
even  uncharitablenefs.* 

We  do  not  accufe  Mr.  Worcefter  of  calling  upon  the 
Jeculnr  potver^  to  wage  direcl  and  bloody  perfecution  upon 
any  fedt  or  denomination  of  Chriftians  ;  but  we  appeal  to 
all  who  are  converfant  with  the  hi  (lory  of  perfecution  s,  if 
he  have  not  manifefted  the  very  fpirit  which  hath  attended 
them  ?  Has  it  not  ever  been  the  cafe,  in  all  perfeculions, 
that  the  perfecutors  have  faid  many  if  not  all  kinds  of 
evil,  falftly^  againft  the  perfecuted,  and  then  proceeded  to 
other  more  violent  flops  ?  Mr.  Worcefter  hath  already  faid 
many  evil  tlv.ngs.fal/clj,  againft  the  Antij: X'dobaptifts  ;  and 
in  the  very  next  fentence  to  the  one  juft  quoted,  he  impli- 
citly charges  them,  and  very  unjuftly  too,  with  feveral  great 
evils.  Says  he,  ♦  So  far  as  they  difcover  an  adherence  to 
the  truth,  a  regard  for  true  religion,  and  a  zeal  for  God 
according  to  knowledge,  we  will  approve  and  love  tliom  ; 
but  wherein  they  depart  from  the  truths  do  ivr^ng  to  the 


Two  Difcourfes,  ^c.  87 

cati/e  of  religion,  and  dijplay  the  unhallo'wed  fp'irtt  o£ party,  we 
will  bear,  as  we  are  enabled  and  have  occafion,  our  tefti- 
mony  agalnft  them/ 

All  this  might  be  taken  in  a  good  fenfe,  but  what  he  fays 
in  the  two  next  paragraphs  Ihows  in  what  ienfe  this  is  to 
be  taken.  In  the  firft  of  the  two  paragraphs  he  infmuates, 
that  we  are  not  contending  or  concerned  for  the  caufe  of 
truth,  but  only  for  the  caufe  of  a  party.  But  in  the  next 
paragraph,  he  accufes  us  roundly,  and  moft  explicitly, 
though  falfely,  of  fome  of  the  worft  of  herefies.  *  Merely 
(fays  he)  a  denial  of  the  external  rite  of  baptifm  to  the 
infant  feed  of  believers,  though  in  itfelf  exceedingly  repre- 
henfible,  as  it  is  a  denial  of  an  important  di'vine  inJituHon, 
is,  however,  but  a  fmall  part  of  the  error  of  our  Aritipsedc- 
baptift  brethren.  They  deny  God^s  eiyerlajl'mg  covenant  of 
Juperabounding  grace,  the  grand  charter  of  the  inheritance  and 
privileges  of  his  people,  and  the  foiirce  of  hlejfings  to  all  the  kin- 
dreds of  the  earth.      2  hey  deny  the  church  of  God,   tvhich  nvcs 

formed  in  the  family  of  Air  ah  am,  and  avhich is  dflined  to 

rife and  become the  joy  of  the  iiniverfe.      The  grar.d 

proTJfion,  ii'hlch,  in  his  infnite  auifdom  and  grace,  Jehovah  h^s 
been  pleafed  to  make,  for  the  prefervation  of  a  righteous  feed  en 
the  earth,  and  for  the  maintenance  and  promotion,  from  age  to 
age,  of  his  caufe  and  kingdom  in  this  hojiile  ^vorld,  they  not  only 
deny,  but  openly  contemn.  They  deny  and  contemn  the  groce^ 
tvhich  is  fo  kindly  and  fo  condefcendingly  offered,  for  the  fpir- 
itual  renovation  and  everlafling  falvation  of  the  seed  of  the 
church.  The  great  body  of  God^s  viftble  profjfng  people,  even 
the  mo  ft  enlightened  and  the  mo/l  faithful,  for  hundreds  of 
years,  they  utterly  fet  afide,  as  conliituting  no  part  of  the 
true  church  of  Chrift,  but  only  a  part  of  Antichrift — The 
flrong  hond  of  connexion  between  the  QUI  and  Neiv  Tcflament 
fcriptures,  they,  in  a  manner,  dflroy.  The  beautiful  plan  of 
divine  tvifdom  and  grace,  exhibited  in  the  covenant,  they  ^'.v- 
eeedingly  mar  ;  and  the  myfieal  body  of  Chrijl,  declared  in  his 
word  to  be  one,  they  rend  in  tijuain  ! ' 

Thefe  accufations,  and  mrsftated  and  falfe  charges,  we 
confider  to  comprife  as  notorious  a  libel  againit  the  baptized 
church  of  Chrift,  as  was  ever  made  out  by  a  Spanilh  inqui- 
fition,  againft  the  fame  kind  of  reputed  or  pretended  heretics. 
Here  we  are  accuied  of  denying  a  divine  injlitutiony  of  deny- 
ing God's  everlafting  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  church  of 
God.  We  are  accufed  of  not  only  denying,  but  of  openly  con- 
temning, the  grand  pro-oifon  which  Jehovah  halh  made,  for 


.  88  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Wcrce/ler's 

the  preferving  a  righteous  feed  en  the  earth  ;  and  of  denying 
and  contemning  the  grace  which,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  fays,  is 
oiFered  for  the  fpir'itual  renovation  and  ei-erlajling  fahation  of 
the  feed  of  ihe  church.  We  are  accufed  of  utterly  fetting 
afide  God's  ^'iflle  people^  even  the  mofl  enlightened  and  the 
mojl  faithful  of  them,  as  being  in  the  church  of  Antichrift  ; 
and  not  only  fo,  but  we  do,  in  a  manner,  (unlefs  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter  fpeak  falfely)  deftroy  the  connexion  between  the  Old 
and  New  Teftament  fcriptures,  exceedingly  mar  the  beau- 
tiful plan  of  divine  luifdom  and  grace,  and  rend  in  tivain  tlie 
myftical  body  of  Chrijl.  This  is  the  fum,  though  not  all,  of 
the  charge  v\'hich  Mr.  Worcefler,  of  Salem,  hath  feen  fit  to 
lay  at  the  door  oi  the  baptized  church.  Quite  fimilai  is 
it  to  that  which  the  felf-righteous  Scribes  and  Pharifees 
brought  againil  our  baptized  Head  and  Lord  ;  and  of  the 
fame  kind,  yet  worfe,  than  the  charge  which  they  brought 
againft  Paul,  when  they  judged  him  to  be  worthy  of  death, 
for  oppofmg  the  very  errors  which  Mr.  Wcrcefter  is  labour- 
ing to  uphold,  and  for  vindicating  thofe  new-covenant 
principles  and  privileges  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  ef- 
tablifh.  But  it  happens  to  us,  as  it  happened  to  our  Lord, 
and  as  it  hath  ever  happened  to  his  faithful  followers,  they 
are  unable  to  prove  the  things  whereof  they  accufe  us. 

Their  accufations  are  equally  falfe,  and  appear  equally 
malignant,  v;ith  thofe,  with  which  our  baptized  brethren 
have  been  wickedly  charged  from  John  the  Baptift's  day 
to  ours.  But,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  *  God  forbid,  my  breth- 
ren, that  we  fhf?uld  ever  difplay  any  thing  like  a  perfecut- 
ing  fpirit.'  But  let  the  reader,  for  a  moment,  allc  what 
is  a  perfecuting  fpirit  ?  Can  any  thing  be  more  like  it, 
tlian  2.re  falfe  and  infammatory  accufaticns  brought  againft  any 
man,  or  fet  of  men,  in  order  to  ftir  up  the  multitude  againft 
the  accufed  ?  efpeciaily  wh?n  the  accufed  is  charged  with 
{peaking  againft  God,  againft  \\\s  grace,  divine  injTituticn,  fa- 
crcd  ivcrd,  and  againft  his  vijille  people  ?  Yea,  againft  the 
beft  of  them,  againft  the  moft  enlightened  and  the  mojl  faith- 
ful of  them  ?  and  when  the  accufed  are  charged  with  mar- 
ring the  plan  of  divine  ivifdom,  of  rending  in  twain  the  church 
of  Chrifl,  and  of  holding  to  fuch  error  and  fuch  wrong,  as 
muft  be  exceedingly  injurious  to  the  caufe  of  religion  and  deeply 
nvounding  to  Chrift  and  the  members  of  his  body  !  Is  not 
the  very  next  ftep,  to  profcribe  thefe  heretics,  and  would 
there  be  any  thing  to  hinder  their  receiving  from  \k\^\x  falfc 
2ind  felf/]j  accufers  fuch  puniftiment,  as  would  deter,  for  the 


Two  Difcourfes^  Uc.  89 

future  ;  provided  thofe  old  perfecuting  laws  could  be  re- 
vived, which  once  imprifoned,  beat  and  banifned  from  Bof- 
ton,  Sakmy  and  from  the  limits  of  this  now  free  State,  the 
€vjr  defpifedyfalfely  accufed,  and  perfecuted  followers  of  the 
Lamb  of  God  ? 

The  fum  of  what  I  propofed  to  fay  upon  Mr.  WorceRer's 
Sermons  is  now  faid.  What  remains  will  be  included  un- 
der the  following  particulars,  as  deductions  from  the  fubje(5i. 

I.  One  very  natural  conclufion  is,  that  Mr.  Worcefter's 
Sermons  are  little  elfe  but  one  continued  fophifm,  or  falfe 
argumentation. 

We  appeal  to  the  reader,  to  the  public,  to  judge  if  he 
have  produced  one  test  from  the  Bible,  one  fupported  fact 
from  hiftory,  or  one  fair  argument,  which  common  itvAe 
faail  fay  touches  his  main  objecl:,  or  fo  much  as  makfes  it 
probable,  thai  the  gofpel  church  is  but  the  yezvijh  church 
continued  ? 

We  appear  to  the  reader,  to  the  public,  to  judge  if  he 
have  produced  one  text  from  the  Bible,  one  fupported  fact 
from  hiftory,  one  full  and  fair  argument,  which  common 
fenfe  fhall  fay  gives  folidity,  or  the  Hamp  of  truth,  to  one 
of  his  fecondary  fubjetfls,  fuch  as  infant  lapiij-in-,  infant  church- 
memherfjip,  fpr'inUing  or  powring  for  hahtifm,  <jfc. 

The  queftioii,  referred  to  the  reader,  and  to  the  public, 
for  judgment,  is  not  this,  whether  Mr.  Worceil:er  hath 
afferted  thefe  things,  or  whether  he  attenipted  to  prove 
them  ;  but  the  queftion  is,  Hath  he  produced  fo  much  as 
one  text  of  fciipture,  vrhlch  commands  thefe  things,  or 
which  informs  us,  that  either  of  thefe  things  was  ever  prac- 
tifed  upon  by  Chrift,  or  by  his  difciples  ;  or  hath  he  pro- 
duced one  fupported  facl  from  hiftory,  which  informs  us  that 
the  church  of  Chrift  ever  believed  or  prac'tifed  thefe  things  ? 
or  that  any  church  did,  till  not  far  from  the  year  250, 
when  the  baptized  church  began  to  occupy  her  wildernefs 
fiation  ?  At  which  time  fhe  left  tlie  unbaptized,  or  th.e  er- 
rcneoufly  baptized,  church  of  Antichriif  lo  pradife  at  her 
pleafure  ?  Or  has  he  produced  one  fair  and  full  argument, 
which  proves  in  the  judgment  of  common  fenfe,  that  thefe 
things  v/cre  ever  appointed  by  Chrill,  or  practifed  by  his 
gofpel  church  ?  Let  the  Bible,  let  ftubbcrn  fa-fts,  let  com- 
mon fenfe  fpeak,  and  be  heard  too  ;  but  let  not  the  public 
be  deceived,  nor  the  truth  of  God  run  down,  nor  the  church 
of  Chrill:  fet  at  nought,  by  the  fophiilry  of  any  man. 


90  Leiicrs  en  Rev,  S.  Worcefter's 

2.  Another  natural  inference  Is,  That  Mr.  Worcefter 
hath  J  m  fo  many  inftances,  pubhfhed  untruths,  and  thus, 
ignorantly  cr  defignedly,  impofed  upon  the  credulity  of 
the  public,  that  he  will  have  no  occafion  to  take  it  un- 
kindly, fhould  they  refufe,  in  future,  to  take  his  fmgle  evi- 
dence in  any  matter  of  high  conceranient. 

The  bell  apology  which  can  be  made  for  him,  is,  he 
undertook  to  write  upon  a  fubjed,  the  merits  of  which  he 
little  underftood  ;  and  to  alTert  things  without  examining, 
and  before  he  had  time  to  difcover,  whether  they  had  an 
agreement  or  difagreement   with  truth. 

3.  One  of  the  following  things  appears  evident  from 
the  preceding  Letters.  Either  firft,  that  the  author  of  them 
hath  not  met  Mr.  Worcefter's  arguments,  reafonings,  and 
aflertions  fairly,  or  fecondly,  that  Mr.  Worcefler's  Sermons 
are  one  continued  feries  of  falfe  cffertions,  and  faJfe  argu- 
vifritations.  The  public  are  requeued  to  deliberate  candidly 
and  Judge  rlghtecuCy  between  the  two. 

Should  Mr.  Worcefter  fee  fit  to  make  any  defence  for 
himfelf,  then  every  friend  to  truth  is  eameftly  defired  to 
examine  wifely,  that  he  may  not  be  deceived  by  a  like 
courfe  of  erroneous  afferllons,  and  delufory  arguments. 
For  it  will  rem^aln  forever  true,  that  two  fides  of  a  con- 
tradiction can  never  be  fupported  by  folid  reafonings 
founded  in  fa(fls. 

4.  Should  the  author  be  charged  with  repetitions,  his 
apology  is  v.'hat  the  reader  has  probably  noticed,  he  had 
to  reply  to  one  great  error,  turned  into  a  variety  of  Ihapes. 

It  is  but  fmall  bufmefs  for  an  author  to  fill  his  pages 
"^•ith  the  incapacity  and  repetitions  of  his  opponent.  For 
children  and  fools  may  fpeak  the  truth  ;  and  if  the  repeti- 
tions be  many,  a  folid  anfwer  to  one  will  do  the  bufmefs 
for  the  whole. 

5.  It  is  very  eafy  to  account  for  the  wide  difference 
between  Mr.  Worcefter  and  the  author  o£  thefe  pages. 
They  are  defending  the  out- works  of  two  different  churches. 
One,  the  church  of  Antichrift  ;  the  other,  the  church  of 
Chrift. 

The  reader  will  obferve,  I  do  not  fay,  Mr.  Worcefter  is 
not  a  Chriftian  ;  but  this  is  what  I  fay,  he  is  within  the  lim- 
its of  Antichrift's  church,  and  is  labouring  hard  to  defend 
her  principles  and  pra>5lices  ;  and  if  he  be  one  of  God's 
people,  the  command  to  him  is,  «  Come  out  of  her."     For 


Two  Bifcourfesy  l^c,  91 

the  prefent  he  is  a  partaker  of  her  fins,  and  he  may  receive 
of  her  plagues. 

6,  Another  inference  is,  that  the  author  of  thefe  pages 
is  highly  cenfurable  for  rebuking  Mr.  Worcefter  lo  fharply 
before  all  men,  unlefs  Mr.  Worcefter  have  fmned  openly. 
Yes,  reader,  if  Mr.  Worcefter  have  not  aimed  his  ihafrs 
againfl  the  church  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  and  been  pleading 
for  the  abominations  of  the  mother  of  harlots,  I  am  not 
only  ignorant  of  the  fubjeft,  on  which  I  write,  but  I  have 
rebuked  him  in  fome  inftances  with  too  much  feverity. 
Yet,  he  would  be  worthy  of  rebuke  for  contradicting  fcrip- 
ture,  ftubborn  fa(5ls  and  common  fenfe,  even  were  he,  on 
the  whole,  defending  the  truth.  But  I  appeal  to  the  reader, 
if  it  be  not  juft  to  rebuke  him,  as  I  have  done,  or,  if  he  be 
not  worthy  of  all  this  rebuke,  and  if  he  be  not  in  danger  of 
receiving  more,  provided  the  accufations,  which  I  have  laid 
to  his  charge,  be  abundantly  fupported,  and  he  be  guilty 
of  the  whole  and  more. 

Concliifion.  What  I  have  written  upon  the  fubjecls, 
which  occupy  the  preceding  pages,  is  not  the  production 
of  inattention.  I  have  deliberated  ferioufly  on  what  I 
have  done. 

It  is,  reader,  no  fmall  thing,  with  i^e,  to  forego  all  that 
efteem  and  friendfhip,  which  I  once  pollefied  in  the  bofom  of 
many,  whom  I  now  efteem  to  be  the  people  of  God,  though 
in  a  great  error,  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift,  and,  for 
the  prefent,  difobedient  to  the  heavenly  diredtion  to  com: 
9ut  of  her.  To  be  defpifed,  to  be  fet  at  nought,  and  to  have 
all  manner  of  evil  faid  againfl  me  falfely,  is,  in  itfelf,  no 
fmall  trial  ;  but  feeing  thefe  things  have  hitherto  been  the 
lot  of  thofe  who  have  been  God's  honoured  inftruments  to 
fpread  and  vindicate  his  me/Tages  of  grace,  at  times,  I  re- 
joice and  am  exceeding  g^ad. 

If  I  miftake  not,  it  is  my  conftitutional  habit  to  be  mild 
and  affable,  where  and  when  I  may  ;  and  hard  and  cenfori- 
ous  only  where  and  >vhen  I  muft.  When  I  firft  faw^,  that 
I  muft  join  and  advocate  the  caufe  of  tlie  baptized  church, 
my  mind  was  filled,  in  -meafure,  with  the  fcorn,  reproach, 
and  reviling,  which  would  fall  to  my  Ihare  from  tlie  ene- 
mies of  Jefus,  and  from  his  mifguided  friends.  But  my 
mind  was  not  difmayed  at  the  fight  ;  nor  is  it  at  all  dif- 
mayed  at  the  reception  of  thofe  evils,  which  the  Captain  of 
Salvation  hath  taught  me  to  expect.  I  am,  indeed,  neither 
aftiamed  of  the  gofpel,  nor  of  its  reproach. 


92  Letters y  Iffc, 

Let  the  reader  remember,  If  he  would  fhare  in  the  blelT-^ 
ings  of  the  gofpel,  he  muft  willingly  partake  of  its  reproach 
alfo.  The  world  hated  Chrlil:  before  it  hated  Chriftians  ; 
and  if  they  have  called  the  mafler  of  the  hcufe  Beelzebub, 
how  much  more  them  of  his  houfehold  ? 

I  have  now  faid  to  the  public  what  I  purpofed  at  this 
time.  My  defire  and  prayer  to  God  are,  that  truth  may 
gain  ground,  and  be  acceptable  to  the  public  ;  and  that 
error  may  be  made  afhamed,  and  hide  its  hurtful  and  guil- 
ty head. 

I  have  not  come  to  the  public  with  excellency  of  fpeech, 
or  of  man's  wifdom,  but  with  the  fimple  attire  of  Truth, 
that  the  unlearned  might  read  and  underfland.  He  that 
hath  an  ear  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  am,  and  hope  ftiil  to  be,  fincerely  the 
public's,  in  defence  of  the  glorious  gofpel  of  the 
Lord  Jefus  Chrill, 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 

Sedqwjck,  October  a;,  1806. 


END. 


CC>  In  feveral  parts  of  the  foregoing  Letters^  the  wteUigent 
reader  iviil  ohfrve  a  remarkable  coincidence  betiveen  the  argu- 
ments contained  in  thefe  Jheets,  and  thofc  ivhich  are  ufed  in  Dr. 
Baldwin's  Reply  to  Mr.  IVorcesteRj  lately  puhlified.  The 
public  are  affured^  that  neither  Dr.  B.UDiriN  nor  Mr.  Merrill 
faw  each  other's  arguments  till  they  appeared  in  print. 


BOOKS 

For  fale  by  Manning  ^  Loring, 

No.  2,   Cornhilli  Bojon, 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY, 
and  the  PARTICULAR  COMMUNION  of  ihe 
B;\?Ti3T  Churches,  explained  and  vindicated.  In  Three 
Parts.  The  firft — publilhed  originally  in  1789  ;  the  fee- 
oad — in  1794;  the  third — an  Appendix,  containing  addi- 
tional Obfervations  and  Arguments,  with  Striftures  on 
r«vcral  late  Fublications.     B/  Thomas  Baldwin. 

[_Prke  one  dol.  ll\  cis. 

CONTAINING, 

PART      L. 

Section  I. — Remarks  on  the  unfriendly  afperfions  caft 
upon  the  Baptifts,  for  refufing  communion  with  other 
denominations — The  gofpei  doctrine  of  a  church  and 
qualification  of  the  members — Wiih  ftriclures  on  baptifm. 

Section  II.— The  impropriety  of  the  Baptift  churches 
communicating  \vith  thofe  of  other  denominations  con- 
fidered,  and  iheir  diilertnce  in  fentiment  more  particu- 
larly pointed  out. 

Section  III.— The  arguments  for  free  communion  con- 
fidered — others  o^ered  in  vindication  of  the  clofe  com- 
munioniils. 

P  A  K  T      II. 

Section    I. — Preliminary   obfervations   on   thx   fubjedl  In 

difpute. 
Section    IL — Profeired  believers  the  only  appointed  fub- 

jecls  of  baptifm. 
Section   III. — Whether  John's  baptifm  belonged  to  the 

Jewifh  or  Chriftian  difpeniation.  particularly  confidered. 
Section   IV. — The  mode  of  baptifm,   and  its  connexion 

with  the  fubje6l  in  difpute,  particulaily  confidered. 
SiCTiON   V. —  The   mode   of  baptifm    farther   illudrated, 

from  the  practice   of  the  primitive  Chridians  ;  and  the 

manner    in   which    it  v/as    reduced   from    immerfion  to 

fprinkling,  briefly  pointed  out. 


Books  for  fale  by  Manning  Iff  Loring, 

Section  VI. — Godly  fmcenty,  as  conne<fled  with  external 
obedience,  confidered. 

Section  VII. — Whether  there  be  any  morality  in  exter- 
nals or  fentiments ;  and  whether  fmcerity  of  heart  fecures 
the  judgnnent  from  error  ;  briefly  confidered. 

Section  VIII. — Whether  the  divine  conduct:  towards  us 
be  the  rule  of  duty  towards  our  Chriftian  brethreH, 
rather  than  God's  revealed  will,  briefly  confidered. 

Section  IX. — Obfervations  on  the  plan  of  communion 
propofed  in  the  "  Friendly  Letter,"  with  remarks  on 
feveral  other  things  conne^ed  with  the  fubjecfl. 

S'ection  X. — Several  objeiftions  particularly  anfwered. 
The  fubjed  concluded. 

APPENDIX. 

Section  I. — Introdudory  obfervations  on  the  fubjed  un- 
der confideration. 

Section  II. — The  arguments  for  infant  memberfhip  in 
the  gofpel  church,  inferred  from  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  confidered. 

Section  III. — Whether  the  Jewifh  and  Chriftian  churches 
are  the  fame ;  or  whether  the  latter  is  a  diftincl  church, 
or  a  mere  continuation  of  the  former,  confidered. 

Section    IV Stridlures    on    the    Rev.    Peter   EJtvanis's 

"  Candid  Reafons  for  renouncing  the  Principles  of  Anti- 
paedobaptifm." 

Section  V. — Stri(n:ures  on  Two  Difcourfes  on  the  perpe- 
tuity and  provifion  of  God's  gracious  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  feed.  By  Samuel  WorceJIerj  a.  m. 
Paftor  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem. 

Section  VL — The  Baptifts  vindicated  from  the  charges 
brought  againft  them  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Worcejler. 

Section  VII. — Strictures  on  the  obfervations  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Worc:Jler^  Dr.  OJgooiU  and  others,  upon  the  mode  of 
baptifm. 

Section  VIII. — The  principles  of  open  communion  ex- 
amined.     The  fubje^fl  concluded. 

(Cj"  The  Appendix,  containing  i8o  pages  never  before 
publifhed,    may   be    bought    feparately,    price   bound    and 

lettered  (ii\  cents,   or  50  cents  ftitched  in  blue. The 

Authors  whofe  writings  againft  the  Baptifts  are  more  par- 
ticularly noticed  in  this  Appendix,  are — Kev.  Samuel  Wor- 
cefter,  of  Salem — Dr.  Ofgood,  of  Medford — Kev.  Samuel 
Auftin,  of  Worcefter,  and  Rev.  Peter  Edwards. 


Books  for  file  by  Manning  cs*  Loring, 
The  Second  Edition  of  SEVEN  SERMONS 

©n    the    Mode    and    Subjeds    of  Baptifm.      By   Daniel 
Merrill,   a.  m.  \_Prtce  37I  cents. 


OPEN  COMMUNION  with  aU  who  keep 

the  Ordinances  as  Chrift  delivered  them  to  the  faints. — 
Eight  Letters  to  Rufus  Anderfon^  A.  m.  By  Daniel 
Merrill,  a.  m.  [_Price  25  cents. 


TWELVE    LETTERS,    addreffed   to    Rev. 

Samuel  Aujl'tn,  A.  M.  in  which  his  Vindication  of  partial 
Wafhing  for  Chriftian  Baptifm,  contained  in  Ten  Letters, 
is  reviewed  and  difproved.     By  Daniel  Merrill,  a.  m. 

\_Price  31;^  cents. 


The   CHRISTIAN   BANNER,— A  Sermon, 

preached   before  the   Lincoln   Baptized  Aflbciation.     By 
Daniel  Merrill,  a.  m.  [^Price  \2\cents. 


A    Candid  EXAMINATION   of  the  Moral 

Tendency  of  the  Dodrine  of  Univerfal  Salvation,  as  taught 
by  its  Advocates.  By  Elisha  Andrews,  Paftor  of  a 
Church  in  Templeton.  [^Price  62\  cents. 


A  VINDICATION  of  the  Diftinguifliing  Sen- 
timents of  the  Baptifts,  againft  the  Writings  of  Meffrs. 
CowIeSf  Miller,  and  Edwards,     By  Elisha  Andrews,  a.  m, 

[^Price  50  cents  in  blue, 

Bunyan's   PILGRIM'S   PROGRESS,   with 

Original  Notes,  Preface,  Life  of  the  Author,  and  copious 
Index  to  the  whole,  by  Thomas  Scott,  Chaplain  to  the 
Lock  Hofpital,  and  author  of  Original  Notes  and  Practical 
Obfervations  on  the  Scriptures.     (With  four  copperplates.) 

^  The  Notes  add  greatly  to  the  value  of  this  edition, 
and  are  exceedingly  interefting  to  the  intelligent  reader  ; 
affording  a  happy  guide  to  the  meaning  of  the  author  in 
his  allegory.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Scott  is  a  man  of  known 
piety,  and  of  critical  knowledge  in  theological  literature. 
The  work  contains  nearly  400  pages,  the  Notes  occupy 
about  one-third.  \Price  one  dol  25  cts. 


v-^^  Books  for  falc  by  Manhing  ly  Loi mg 


The  Doclrine  of  the  Law  and  Grace  unfolded. 

Being  a  Difcourfe  fliewing  the  different  natures  of  the  Law 
and  Gofpel ;  and  the  very  diirmillar  fiates  of  thofe  who  aie 
.under  the  Law,  and  thofe  who  are  under  Grace,  or  interelled 
in  Jdus  Chr i [^.     By  Jo  h  n  B u  n  v  a  s  . 

[_Pnce  ene  dollar. 

The  Death  of  Legal  Hope  the  Life  of  Evan- 
gelical Obedience.     By  Abraham  Booth. 

[  Price  3 1  cents  Jiluhed. 

Mr.  FuLLER^s  ESSAY  on  TRUTH ;  contain- 
ing an  Inquiry  into  its  Nature  and  Importance,  \^ith  the 
Caufes  of  Error,  and  the  Keafons  of  its  being  permitted. 

Prefident  Maxcy's  DISCOURSE,  defigned 

to  explain  the  Do<5lrine  of  ATONEMENT. 

\^Both  Jl'tiched  together  in  llue^  price  25  cents » 

The  Second  Edition  of  the  PSALMODIST's 

ASSISTANT;  containing  an  Original  Compofition  of 
Pfalm  and  Kymn  Tunes  ;  together  with  a  Number  of 
Favourite  Pieces  from  different  Authors.  To  which  is 
prefixed,  an  Introduction  to  the  Grounds  of  Mufic.  By 
Abijah   Forbush. 

\_Pr'ice  62 1  cents. 


yujl  received,  and  for  Jo.le  as  aho've. 

Dr.  Samuel  Shepard's  Examination  of  the 

Account  lately  publifhed  by  Mr.  Ellas  Smith,  in  two  pam- 
phlets, refpe<fiing  Original  Sin;  the  Death  Adam  was  to 
die  the  day  he  ate  the  forbidden  fruit ;  and  the  final  end  of 
the  V/icked  after  the  Refurteaion  Day — In  an  Epiftle  to 
the  faid  Elias  Smith. 

{Price  25  ctnts. 


jfujl  received  from  Nciu  Torh, 

CoLLiNs's    Second   Edition    of    the    Quarto 
BIBLE,  with  Ostervald's  Notes,  Plates,  and  Concord- 


ance. 


Crj*  Colllns's  Bible  has  obtained  celebrity  as  being  the 
moft  corre(fl  of  any  ever  printed  in  America. 


I.  \^ 


